2010 Supreme(Bom) 6

In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
Dinesh Jagannath Khandelwal
Versus
Kundanlal s/o Perumal Chhabriya & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 6006 OF 2006
Decided on: 04-01-2010

Headnote:Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 16(1)(g), 24 and 34 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XX, Rule 12 - Suit for eviction of tenant - Filed by landlord having title under Section 24 of Act for his bona fide need - Resisted by tenant/petitioner - Dismissed by Small Cases Court - Appeal by landlord/respondent - Allowed by trial Court setting aside decree of Small Causes Court - Writ petition by tenant - Held - Respondent/ landlord established tenant has alternative accommodation and already shifted his business there - Using suit premises as office-cum-Chamber - Lease not renewed - Respondent failed to establish tenant fabricated Xerox copies of renewed lease deed impugned judgment and decree set aside - Appeal restore back to file to trial Court to consider entitlement of landlord/appellant before it to decree under Section 16(1) of Act afresh in accordance with law - Petition partly allowed. - Several precedents on various facets of "reasonable requirement" are placed before me for consideration by both learned counsel. Same deal with appropriate details of the bona fide need or other accommodation both with landlords and tenant and importance of its true discloser i.e. making clean breast of matter before the Court for said purpose in their respective pleadings, effect of suppression thereof. Also question of burden on either about proving need, about proving bona fides, about proving alternative accommodation, relevance thereof with need or to tilt the balance of comparative hardship is argued at length with reference to Section 16(1)(g) and (2) of Rent Court. Courts find that the Small Cause Court answered the issue in favour of tenant and in appeal, though landlords made sincere efforts to assail said findings, the Appellate Court did not discharge its obligations as per law. The stage at which bona fide need surfaced, the circumstances in which it was pleaded, sufficiency of those pleadings, correctness thereof, aptness of reply thereto by the tenant, critical appreciation of evidence adduce on record by both sides about need or respective hardship, its admissibility, relevance of pleas in defense by tenant for that purpose, impact of availability (if any) of alternative accommodation and validity of approach by Small Cause Court are various facets having significant bearing on bona fide need here. As the Appellate Court could not look into it and as Court finds that it will not be proper to deny the advantage of that forum to one of the parties before Court, it is proper to send the matter back to Appellate Court to consider only said aspect of bona fide need. Court, therefore do not find it fit to express any opinion on all these facets or on case law being used by parties to canvass their respective cause. Same needs to be left open for consideration before the Appellate Court as per law.

       In the circumstances, judgment and decree dated 29.8.2006 delivered by Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 301 of 2004 is set aside and decree for eviction of petitioner tenant granted thereby under Section 16(1) of Rent Act is quashed - Regular Civil Appeal No. 301 of 2004 is restored back to the file of said Court to consider entitlement of appellant landlords before it to the decree under Section 16(1)(g) of Rent Act only and afresh in accordance with law. Rejection of decree for eviction on remaining grounds vide its judgment and decree dated 30.4.2004 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 165 of 2000 by Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Nagpur to landlords is restored. As the matter is old, Additional District Judge Nagpur to attempt to decide the appeal as restored as early as possible and in any case by 31.7.2010 As the issue of bona fide need and comparative hardship is only to be considered by it, it is made clear that observations made by this Court in that respect are only to emphasise the need of remand of that ground and those observations shall not influence the Appellate Court while resolving said controversy as per law.