JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:—This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 16th July, 1996 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 438 of 1990 in R.A.E. Suit No. 555/2438 of 1977. The premises in question is situated on the ground floor being Flat No. 1 and the Grage No. 1 in the basement in the building known as Sorrento at Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai. The respondent No. 2 was inducted as tenant in the said premises, pursuant to Lease Agreement dated 1st November, 1966 by the erstwhile landlord of the suit premises. The suit premises were purchased by the petitioner in the year 1974. At that time, the petitioner was unmarried. It is not in dispute that tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioner after she purchased the suit property. The petitioner got married to Dr. Fanibunda in the year 1975. After marriage, the petitioner started living with her husband in Amarchand Mansion, 16. Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 039. The petitioner instituted the subject suit on 9th June, 1977 for possession of the suit premises from the respondent No. 1. The ground on which possession is sought can be culled out from paragraph 4 and subsequently inserted paragraph 4-A of the plaint, which read thus:-

PARA 4:

"The plaintiff states that the suit premises are occupied by the defendant No. 1 as a statutory tenant thereof. The premises are required bona fide and reasonably by the plaintiff and her family members. The plaintiff, therefore, submits that she is entitled to a decree in ejectment against the defendant No. 1."

PARA 4-A:

"The defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been joined in this suit as unlawful occupants in order to get effective relief of possession on the ground of requirements."

Although no particulars or elaboration of the ground on which possession was sought is made in the plaint, nevertheless, the trial Court framed necessary issues, which read thus:

"1. Is plaintiff entitled to file such a suit?

2. Does plaintiffs prove that the suit premises are required by the plaintiff and her family members bona fide and reasonable for their use and occupation, as alleged?

3. Will greater hardship be caused to the defendants if a decree in eviction is passed than to the plaintiff if it is refused?

4. Is plaintiff entitled to possession sought?

5. What order and decree?"

2. It is relevant to note that during the course of adducing evidence, the petitioner examined herself as well as other witnesses and brought on record several details and particulars to justify the ground for possession of the suit premises i.e. bona fide and reasonable requirement of the petitioner and her family members. It is not in dispute that the respondents allowed the said evidence to be let in without any demur. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the petitioner moved an application for amendment of plaint, so as to implead defendant Nos. 2 and 3, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, sometime on 16th January, 1980, which application was allowed on 5th June, 1980. Subsequently, the petitioner took out another application for adding defendant No. 4 respondent No. 4 herein, which was allowed on 26th August, 1988. By this amendment, the petitioner asserted that defendant No. 1, who was the original tenant, had become statutory tenant after expiry of the lease period in November, 1976. It is further asserted that defendants 2, 3 and 4 were unlawful occupants and were joined as defendants in order to get effective relief of possession on the ground of requirement. Be that as it may, as observed earlier, the petitioner adduced evidence in support of her case of her requirement being bona fide and reasonable. The trial Court, on analysing the evidence on record, however, negatived the plea taken by the plaintiff in so far as her personal requirement. Undisputedly, the petitioner is suffering from Polio since 11 years of age and because of that, her leg muscles and stomach muscles are partially

Click Here to Read the rest of this document