The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a landlord to recover possession of premises under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel, Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1946, and the consideration of greater hardship in eviction cases under Section 13(2). The judgment also emphasizes the bonafide requirement of the landlord for occupation by himself or his family members.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties extensively.

2. Decree of eviction recorded in Regular Civil Appeal No.104 of 2005 dated 30th August, 2010 by the learned District Judge-4, Jalgaon, setting aside the decree of dismissing the suit by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raver in Regular Civil Suit No.43/1997, is impugned by the revision applicant/tenant in this revision.

3. The premises in question belonged to Yashwant (original owner/plaintiff) being CS No.156 admeasuring 36.4 sq. meters situate in commercial area at Raver, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. The revision applicant is a tenant at ground floor of the said premises, consisting of two rooms -12 x 18 ft and 12 x 13 ft. at monthly rental of Rs.15/-as per the Marathi calender month.

4. Landlord Yashwant sought eviction of the tenant (revision applicant) on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement.

5. Learned CJJD, did not agree default, while learned District Judge accepted that the tenant is not a willful defaulter. He found, the landlord is entitled for suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his use and occupation.

6. Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel, submits two principal questions involved in the present revision, which are :

(a) Whether, after death of the landlord on 29.7.2009, expired during pendency of the appeal, his bonafide need and requirement would be subsisting?

(b) Whether the comparative hardship of the landlord considered by the first Appellate court than that of the tenant (revision applicant) was justifiable.?

7. In order to stress his point, learned counsel relied to the judgment reported in AIR 1973 SC 2110(1) -Smt. Phool Rani and Ors. Vs. Sh. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia. In this case, it was held, that the legal representatives of a landlord have no right to continue the proceedings as initiated by the landlord for ejectment of the tenant under Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act because the bona fide requirement of the premises for the residence of the landlord and his family members together is his personal requirement, such a personal cause would perish with him. The plaintiff's right to sue will, therefore, not survive to the appellant (legal representatives) and they cannot glean the benefit of original right to sue.

8. This judgment was placed before three Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shantilal Thakordas and Ors. Vs. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala -AIR 1976 SC 2358 (1) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, -

"In our considered opinion in fact of the wordings of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Act, the view expressed in Phool Rani's case (AIR 1973 SC 2110) as stated above, is not correct. If the law permitted the eviction of the tenant for the requirement of the landlord "for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family", then the requirement was both of the landlord and the members of his family. On his death the right to sue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. We are unable to take the view that the requirement of the occupation of the members of the family of the original landlord was his requirement and ceased to be the requirement of the members of his family on his death. After the death of the original landlord the senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of the other members of the family. Many of the substituted heirs of the deceased landlord were undoubtedly the members of his family and two married daughters and the children of a deceased daughter in the circumstances could not be held to be not members of the family of the deceased landlord." and consequently, overruled the said judgment.

9. Mr. Dhorde has also relied to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3864 -Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. M/s Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. wherein, the Hon'ble Lordships observed that, "...the