The burden of proof on the landlord to establish reasonable and bonafide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) and the mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

1. This civil revision application is preferred by the original respondents -tenants against whom adecree for eviction from the suit premises has been passed by VII Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad on 30.12.2002 in Rent Suit No.22/2001, on the ground of bonafide requirement and same is maintained in Rent appeal No.2/2003, dismissed by the District Judge at Aurangabad, by his judgment and order dated 03.10.2005.

2. The facts leading to this case are as under:-The respondent is landlord, filed Rent Suit No.24/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad against the applicant-tenant, for eviction on the grounds of willful default, demolition of the premises and bona fide requirement. In this revision, we are concerned only with the ground of bonafide requirement and in respect of that the landlord pleaded in the suit that the defendants are the tenants in the house, which consists of two rooms with toilet unit. It was pleaded that the respondent-landlord has five sons and two daughters and the house, which is in his possession, is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family. The mother of the landlord is also residing with him, and he therefore requires the premises in occupation of the tenant, for his bonafide requirement of residence. The applicants - tenants filed their written statement and denied that the landlord has five sons, two daughters and that his mother is also residing with him, as alleged. The applicants - tenants also denied that the landlord required the premises for his bonafide use i.e. for his residence purpose.

3. The respondent - landlord filed his affidavit by way of evidence in support of his claim and stated that he has five sons and two daughters, and the house in his possession, is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family. He also stated that his old mother is also residing with him and the area in his occupation, which is having three rooms, is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family of 10 persons, and, therefore, his need is bonafide and genuine. He was cross examined on the aspect of total members of his family, and he stated that he has five sons and two daughters and was prepared to place on record the documentary evidence to that effect. The petitioner No.2 examined himself in support of his defence and stated in his evidence that the plaintiff - landlord is in possession of another house, which is owned by him and the house in his possession is sufficient for accommodation of his entire family. He stated that the need putforth by the landlord is not bonafide. He has further stated that the petitioner No.1 is his old mother and he is a labourer earning Rs.400/to Rs.500/per month and he has no alternative accommodation to shift. He has further stated that he is in occupation of two rooms, open space, latrine and bathroom and is occupying the same since last 50 years.

4. The Trial Court framed the issues as to bonafide requirement of respondentlandlord and comparative hardship of the petitioners -tenants. The Trial Court specifically dealt with the question about the number of family members of the respondent - landlord and recorded a finding that the landlord has proved that his family includes his five children, old mother, himself and his wife. The finding is also recorded that the evidence shows the respondent - landlord is in occupation of two blocks. The further finding is that the evidence on record suggests that the demand put forth is reasonable and bonafide, to meet the demand of his growing family. On the question of comparative hardhship, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner No.1 tenant is the old lady, whereas, the petitioner No.2 is her son and is doing the labour work, and these facts have gone unchallenged. The findings on comparative hardships are almost in favour of tenants, but the ultimate order is against them.

5. On Appeal, the Appellate Court recorded a finding that the landlord has five sons and