The main legal point established in the judgment is that financial conditions should not be the sole basis for determining comparative hardship under the Bombay Rent Act.

MOHTA ANOOP V. , J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the landlord and respondent is the tenant. The premises consists of two rooms on ground floor in house bearing no. 636 situated at Kasba Peth, Pune. Both the Courts after considering the material, as well as, the evidence led by the parties, held in favour of the petitioner that the case of bonafide need, as sought, has been made out. However, the Additional District Judge, Pune, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29/8/ 1992, (Appellate Court) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant and dismissed the suit for possession of the petitioner on the sole ground of the greater hardship to the tenant, though confirmed the finding of bona fide need of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) HEARD Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent, though served. The present petition was admitted on 26/7/1993, only on issue of "relative hardship".

( 3 ) THE petitioner-landlord, has deposed and, as accepted by the courts below that there are, 14 members in his family, which includes, wife, old mother, 3 sons, 5 grand children. They are in occupation of three rooms i. e. two rooms on the first floor, one room on the second floor. Out of two rooms on the first floor, one is used, as a kitchen, there is no toilet on the first floor but there is a bathroom. On the second floor there is neither toilet nor bathroom. The terrace is open to the sky having tin sheets over it. Therefore, that area is not useful for the respondent. The petitioner himself is suffering from' hyper tension and cervical cord compression and therefore facing difficulty in walking and therefore, advised to stay on the ground floor. He is unable to walk properly. It is difficult for him to climb the stair-case. He has also suffered heart stroke. Both the Courts below therefore, right in concluding the issue of bona fide need in favour of the landlord.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the tenant-respondent, at the relevant time, aged 70 years, living in the premises in question with a son. The trial Court, after considering the evidence including a issue of greater hardship, passed decree in favour of the landlord. It is the Appellate Court, even after confirming the reasoning and finding in favour of the landlord, about bona fide need, dismissed the suit on the ground of comparative hardship by observing the tenant would suffer greater hardship, if decree was passed, on the basic foundation, that the landlord petitioner has three sons they are financially sound. On the other hand, tenant-respondent is retired, aged person and he has only one son. The financial condition of the landlord-petitioner is sound and he can secure an alternative accommodation. The tenant's son is working, as a clerk, it would be difficult for them to secure any other accommodation.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on 2003 (3) bom. C. R. (S. C.)527 : A. I. R. 2003 S. C. W. 3307 and (Badrinaran Chunilal bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada), A. I. R. 2003 S. C. W. 1027 (Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil v. Mohammed Gudusaheb), to support her submission, that the term "comparative hardship and greater hardship", as contemplated under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act) or even any other related legislation in no way expanded to this extent of financial conditions of the parties i. e. the landlord or the tenant.

( 6 ) THE Apex Court in Bhimanagouda (supra), after considering the karnataka Rent Control Act, interpreting the term comparative hardship, observed as under; "therefore the learned District Judge held comparative hardship in favour of the tenant solely on the basis of affluence of the parties. If this is a correct approach then an affluent landlord can never get possession of his premises, even if he proves al