The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's genuine intention to return to India and settle down with his family, the absence of alternative suitable accommodation for the landlord, and the lack of evidence of greater hardship for the tenant in upholding the decree for possession in favor of the landlord.

1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dated 28th September, 1989 in Appeal No.507 of 1985 thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court dated 16th August, 1985 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.390/2552 of 1970.

2. The Respondent/landlord filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation as also possession of the premises bearing flat No.D-2, Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society situated at 653/654. 17th Road, Khar, Mumbai on the grounds of default, bonafide requirement, unlawful subletting and defendant having acquired alternative residential accommodation elsewhere. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent/landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement and tenant having secured alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere. The said decision was unsuccessfully carried in appeal by the Defendants/tenants. Even the Appellate Court confirmed the decree for possession on the aforesaid two grounds, while dismissing the Appeal preferred by the tenants. Against these concurrent decisions present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the tenants.

3. Insofar as the ground of bonafide requirement, the Respondent averred in his plaint that he required the suit premises reasonably, bonafide and for his own use and occupation. He further asserted that he had no other residential premises of his own elsewhere. The tenants/defendants in the Written Statement merely denied the claim of the Plaintiff that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was staying alongwith his father in the same building Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in another flat, which premises were sufficient for the Plaintiff. The Defendants further stated that they had no other premises in Mumbai and greater hardship would be caused to them, if they were ordered to be evicted. The defendants denied that the first Defendant was not in possession and the second defendant was unlawful occupant of the suit premises. This is the only case made out by the Defendants in the Written Statement, as can be discerned from para-5 thereof.

4. On the basis of such pleadings, the parties went for trial. During the trial, the Plaintiff examined himself as well as his younger brother Shashank. Defendant No.1/tenant did not enter the witness box himself. The Defendant No.2, who is the son of Defendant No.1 and claims to be residing in the suit premises, was examined as defence witness. The Trial Court analysed the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had stated that he was presently staying with his mother in Flat No.4-B which is adjacent to the suit premises and the said flat was of identical dimensions as that of the suit premises admeasuring about 600 sq.ft. The Plaintiff has however, deposed that his younger brother and mother were also residing in the said flat, which stands in the name of his mother. The Plaintiff has asserted that he would require an independent accommodation for himself and his family. When he gave evidence before the Trial Court, his family consisted of himself, wife and two children between 3 to 5 years of age. The Trial Court has further noticed that the Plaintiff in his evidence has stated that he was in medical profession and after obtaining MBBS from Mumbai University in 1972, for some time he worked as House Physician in K.E.M. Hospital at Mumbai. Thereafter till 1977, the Plaintiff was in England where he completed Senior House Officers course. The Plaintiff thereafter, returned to India in June, 1977 and again went to the United States of America, where he completed three years’ course in neurology. The Plaintiff has deposed that he was practising his profession in Chicago in U.S.A.

5. Relying on these facts stated by the Plaintiff, it was argued before the Trial Cou