The subsequent events presented by the petitioning party should be of significant magnitude to completely establish or demolish their case, and the court's writ jurisdiction does not allow reappreciation of evidence as a Court of Appeal.

JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---Introduction.

The legal representatives of the landlords-original plaintiffs have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.The petition is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. Both the courts below were pleased to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit premises were required by them for their reasonable and bona fide occupation and further held that no hardship could be caused to the petitioners in the event decree for eviction and possession was refused.

FACTUAL MATRIX

Factual matrix lies in narrow compass and it is this :

3.The petitioners are the owners and landlord of the house situate at 6, Rajan Village, Off Carter Road, Bandra, Bombay. The said house consists of ground and first floor. The respondent is a tenant of the first floor on a monthly rent Rs. 140/-. The suit for eviction and possession was filed by the original plaintiffs (since deceased) against the defendants on the ground that the premises in possessions of the defendant-tenant were needed for reasonable and bona fide occupation of four sons of original petitioner No. 1 late Shri Benjamin Pereira (since deceased) namely; for the present petitioners as they were of the marriageable ages. Thus, decree of eviction was sought under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act' for short).

4.As stated by Shri Pereira (since deceased) along with his sister, petitioner No. 5 (since deceased) had filed R.A.E. Suit No. 113/440 of 1982 and Appeal No. 756 of 1985 therefrom in the Court of Small Cause Court, Bombay. The trial Court dismissed the said suit on 26th October, 1985. The said order of dismissal was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 756/1985 vide its order dated 4th May, 1998.

5.The original petitioner No. 1-Benjamin Pereira has died on 12th May, 1988 i.e. after decision of the appeal and during the pendency of this petition. The petitioner No. 5 also left for heavenly abode in 1993, pending disposal of this petition. That is how the present petitioners in the capacity of legal heirs are before this Court to prosecute this petition.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

6.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below on the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship contending that both the courts below failed to appreciate their reasonable and bona fide need in its proper perspective and erroneously dismissed their suit for eviction and possession. In order to get over the concurrent findings of fact he has tried to shoot the missile of subsequent events alleged to have taken place during the pendency of this petition. The petitioner No. 1 filed an affidavit and tried to show substantial increase in the requirement of the family and tried to impress upon this Court that the present accommodation available with them is totally insufficient for the family.

7.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that both the courts below have appreciated evidence led by the parties in its proper perspective. The findings recorded can very well be supported by evidence available on record. He took me through adverse findings recorded by both the courts below against the landlords and tried to point out that the landlords are in possession of one additional building at 6-A Rajan Village, Off Carter Road, Mumbai, just adjacent to the suit premises and the property is being used for housing tenants from time to time.

8.He further urged that the alleged subsequent events are not of such magnitude which if taken into account would provide any strength to the case of the petitioners. As such it needs no consideration. He sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava)1, A.I.R. 2001

Click Here to Read the rest of this document