The landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement for possession and the duty of the tenant to seek alternative accommodation when faced with eviction.

JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1983 dated April 7, 1989.

2.The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises which are owned by respondent No. 1 bearing Municipal House No. 75, Ali No. 63 known as Ugvekar Chawl, situated at Rambaug, Kalyan. The suit property consists of one room which was let out to the predecessor of the petitioner-Kashinath Gujar on a monthly rent of Rs. 8.00 plus 0.16 Paise towards education cess. After the demise of the said Kashinath Gujar, the petitioner has become tenant of the present respondent No. 1.

3.Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit in the Court of the II Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan, being R.C.S. No. 288 of 1975 praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Eviction of the petitioner-tenant was prayed on different grounds, viz. default in payment of rent; conduct of the petitioner-tenant causing nuisance and annoyance; petitioner having committed an act contrary to provisions of Clause (o) of section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1981; petitioner having erected a permanent structure without the consent of the landlord; and bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord.

4.The said suit was resisted by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as eleven issues. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court was, however, pleased to dismiss the suit and negatived the case of the respondent No. 1 on all counts. Against the said decision, the respondent No. 1 Smt. Krishnabai Dhaniram Ugavekar, being landlady, preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1983 before the IV Additional District Judge, Thane. Before the Appellate Court, the respondent No. 1 not only pressed the ground of default in payment of rent but also other grounds, including the ground that the petitioner having erected a permanent structure without the consent of the landlady and the petitioner having acquired a suitable and alternative accommodation, as well as the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the respondent-landlady. The Appellate Court was, however, pleased to negative all other grounds except the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the respondent No. 1 as well as the issue of greater hardship to be caused to the landlady than the petitioner tenant. The Appellate Court was, accordingly, pleased to allow the appeal by the impugned order and decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondent No. 1 solely on the ground of bona fide and personal requirement.

5.Against the said judgment, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereas the respondent No. 1 has not assailed the findings recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to other grounds. In other words, the sole ground that survives for consideration of this Court is whether the landlady has succeeded in establishing that the suit premises are bona fide and reasonably required by her as well as consequential issue of greater hardship.

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that having regard to the material on record, it is more than clear that the landlord has acquired possession from other tenants in respect of neighbouring premises, and, in the circumstances, the issue of bona fide and personal requirement will have to be necessarily answered against her. As such, no decree of eviction could be passed against the petitioner-tenant. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even if the respondent No. 1 had shown her fairness in offering an alternative accommodation to the petitioner, that would not entitle her for a decree of possession unless she succeeds in establishing the reasonable and bona fide requirement. He furt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document