Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.S. SHINDE, J
Rameshwar Nanakram Prajapal
Versus
Mrs. Sundrabai Keru Ghadage
WRIT PETITION NO.250 OF 1992
Decided on : 18-06-2012
Since findings of Courts below as to bona fide requirement and comparative hardship of landlord’s family, are in consonance with evidence on record hence order of eviction justified. - The important aspect which was considered by the lower appellate Court is about the size of the family of the plaintiff. At the relevant time, it is undisputed position that, in the plaintiff’s family, there were six members.
It has come on the record that, one son of the plaintiff got married. It is also not in dispute that, other two sons were about to marry. Therefore, the lower appellate Court taking into consideration the size of the family of the plaintiff, reached to the conclusion that, rented premises which are occupied by the original plaintiff are not sufficient for their use and occupation. The lower appellate Court has also considered the comparative hardship. The lower appellate Court has considered that, with the size of family of the plaintiff, it is not possible for the plaintiff to continue to reside in 10’ x 10’ size premises. Therefore, the lower appellate Court taking into consideration the actual need of the plaintiff, has recorded the findings that, the suit premises are required for personal use and occupation of the plaintiff and her family members.
It appears that, the trial Court has not considered that, the premises belongs to the original plaintiff and so far bona fide requirement is concerned, it is for the landlord to consider what is his bona fide requirement. Secondly and rightly so, the lower appellate Court has considered the comparative hardship taking into consideration the size of the family of the landlord. The lower appellate Court has also considered that, it is not the case of the original tenant that accommodation is not available on rent. In the facts of this case, the lower appellate Court taking into consideration the size of the family of the original plaintiff- landlord, has recorded the findings of facts that, the suit premises are required for the original plaintiff-landlord for residential purpose. Court finds considerable force in the arguments of the counsel appearing for the original plaintiff landlord that, it is not for the tenant or for the Court to dictate what is bona fide requirement of the landlord. It is well-settled law that the landlord is the best Judge of his residential requirement and has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to indicate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of there own. The High Court was not justified in giving such a gratuitous advice to her which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, set aside. The High Court should not have interfered under Section 25-B(8) on reappraisal of evidence.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that, the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record, there is no perversity as such in those findings, no case is made out to interfere in those findings of facts recorded by the lower appellate Court, which is the last Court on facts, the writ petition is devoid of any merits, same stands dismissed.
1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11th December, 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1984.
2. The petitioner herein is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 1981 filed by the respondent herein in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon for possession of the suit premises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short, "Bombay Rent Act").
3. The plaintiff i.e. respondent herein filed civil suit with the contention that, she is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal House No. 267A (CTS No. 2504) situated at Jalgaon and the defendant – petitioner herein, as tenant, is occupying one room of 10’ x 10’ of the said building on the monthly rent of Rs.35/-. The respondent herein i.e. original plaintiff stated in the said suit that, she is residing in tenanted premises and there are six persons in the family of the plaintiff. The petitioner herein contested the said suit. The trial Court by the judgment and order dated 26th April, 1984 dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 1981. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein i.e. original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1984 before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon and the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon by its judgment and order dated 11th December, 1991 allowed the appeal filed by the original plaintiff-landlord. Hence this writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the trial Court after considering the evidence on record on comparative hardship, reached to the conclusion that, the premises which are occupied by the plaintiff –original landlord are more convenient to her since there is facility of electricity, water etc. It is submitted that, the husband of the plaintiff-respondent constructed structure of the said premises and the original plaintiff alongwith family members are residing there. Those findings are recorded by the trial Court. It is submitted that, the trial Court has considered the comparative hardship since the salary of the petitioner at the relevant time was Rs. 450/- p.m. only. There were seven family members. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has recorded findings that, the premises 10’ x 10’ which are occupied by the original plaintiff are sufficient, secondly, the said structure is constructed by husband of the original plaintiff and thirdly, on comparative hardship, the trial Court has held in favour of the petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for the lower appellate Court to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
The learned Counsel invited my attention to the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court on comparative hardship and also on the point of requirement of the suit premises for bonafide need and personal use and submitted that, though the notice was issued by the plaintiff's landlord mentioning the size of the premises occupied by them is 24' x 5', the lower appellate Court has wrongly recorded the size of the premises as 10' x 10'. It is further submitted that, the lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration the salary of the petitioner and also the financial condition of the respondent and reached to the erroneous conclusion that, the landlord will suffer more hardship. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent i.e. original plaintiff placed his reliance upon the reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court and submitted that, the lower appellate Court has recorded the correct findings of facts and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that, it is not for the tenant or the Court to dictate the terms to the landlord about what is bonafide requirement
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
