A landlord cannot obtain possession of leased premises under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act if the suit is based on section 13(1)(i) and the evidence shows that the case is covered by section 13(1)(g), unless the landlord has furnished sufficient particulars in the notice or plaint to enable the tenant to meet the case.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 13(1)(I) AND 13(1)(G) - INTERPRETATION - OPEN LAND - CONSTRUCTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - PARTICULARS - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, the legal heirs of Bhagwant Vishnu Purandare, filed a suit for possession of the suit premises, an open space, from the defendants, a partnership firm and its partners, who had been tenants since 1931. The plaintiffs claimed that they required the premises for their reasonable and bona fide use after putting up a new construction. The defendants contended that the premises were not an open place but had a constructed area, and that the plaintiffs' claim for a new building was neither bona fide nor reasonable.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the premises were not an open land but a constructed area, and that the provisions of section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act were not attracted. The court also held that the notice terminating the tenancy was illegal. The appellate court confirmed the trial court's decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the premises were an open land or a constructed area? 2. Whether the plaintiffs' requirement of the premises was reasonable and bona fide? 3. Whether the notice terminating the tenancy was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the concurrent finding of fact by the trial court and the appellate court that the premises were not an open place but a constructed area was not perverse and should not be disturbed. Therefore, the case was not covered by section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs had not made out a case that they were entitled to relief under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The plaintiffs had not furnished any particulars in their notice or plaint, and there was a total absence of material particulars on which the defendants could base their defense and meet the plaintiffs' case. 3. The court held that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid because it did not specify the grounds for termination.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' writ petition, upholding the decision of the trial court and the appellate court.

JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The suit premises in this case described as an open space admeasuring 57½ x 33½ ' situate at C.T.S. No. 688/89 in Raviwar Peth, Pune City, were owned by one Bhagwant Vishnu Purandare, now represented by his legal heirs and representatives, out of whom his son Govind Bhagwant Purandare also died and, therefore, represented in turn by his legal heirs and representatives (hereinafter referred to has 'the plaintiffs'). The premises were let out originally by Bhagwant to the respondents, respondent No. 1 being a partnership firm and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 being the partners, (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') under a registered rent note dated October 19, 1931 at yearly rent of Rs. 451/- initially for a period of five years. According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises were open land on which the defendants constructed a temporary shed for a godown and a stable and used the same yearly for the purpose of their business. They also contended that the yearly rent was paid upto the end of 1965 and thereafter as per the agreement entered into in January, 1966, the tenancy was converted into a monthly tenancy at the rate of Rs. 47/- per month. Thereafter, as the originally plaintiff Bhagwant required the suit premises for his reasonable and bona fide use after putting up a new construction, he by a notice dated July 28, 1971 called upon the defendants to deliver possession of the suit premises after removing the temporary shed. As the defendants did not comply with the said notice, their tenancy was terminated by a notice dated October 7, 1972 with effect from the end of October 1972. On non-compliance with the notice of termination of tenancy, the said Bhagwant filed Civil Suit No. 1135 of 1973 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was their case that what was let out to them was not an open place but there was a constructed area up to the plinth admeasuring 48' x 24' in which the defendants constructed a temporary shed. They also contended that the claim of the plaintiffs for construction of a new building was neither bona fide nor reasonable. They denied that by mutual agreement the tenancy was converted from yearly tenancy to monthly tenancy. According to them ,the notice of termination of the tenancy was invalid. It was also one of the contentions that the rent charged by the plaintiffs was excessive and unreasonable.

3. The suit was tried by the Third Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune. The original plaintiff Bhagwant Purandare adduced his own evidence and examined an Architect by name Ratnakar Shankar Bodhni. In support of his plea of bona fide requirement he examined his grand daughter-in-law, Dr. Vidya Rajaram Purandare, who deposed that she required a new constructed building to start a maternity home and a dispensary. Another witness examined on behalf of the original plaintiff was his grand-son, Shankar Laxman Purandare who deposed that the present accommodation in house No. 690 and 691 where he had his workshop was insufficient and that he had no place for his office and a show-room and he needed additional accommodation in a newly constructed building on the suit premises. Documentary evidence in the nature of plans, sanctions by the authorities and the requisite permission for construction of a new building were also produced by the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, Ramanlal Tulshidas Shah (defendant No. 2) adduced his own evidence and one Ramchandra Narayan Kambli, a clerk in the Rationing Department, 'B' Zone, Raviwar Peth, Pune, was also examined. An Engineer by name Arvind Jadhavji Bhayani gave evidence on behalf of the defendants that there was a construction of plinth and the walls on the suit premises.

4. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, by both parties, the learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated July 28, 1977 dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that what was let to the defendants was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document