The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, particularly Section 13(1)(g) regarding bonafide requirement for personal use, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

1. The application is filed against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Jalgaon. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant challenging the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 352 of 1998, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The suit filed by the present respondent was for eviction under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said suit was decided in favour of the respondent. Both sides are heard.

2. The suit was filed in respect of one room having size of 6 X 12 feet, which is a part of house property bearing C.T.S. No. 1413 from Maruti Peth, Jalgaon Municipal Council. It is contended that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from previous owner on 20.05.1981 and notice of attornment was given to defendant.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant did not pay the agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month from 01.01.1979 and so notice of termination of tenancy was given. It is contended that the Municipal Council had asked the plaintiff to pull down the structure as it is in dilapidated condition and it is dangerous. It is contended that the plaintiff and his three brothers are living in Hindu joint family and the house property belongs to them. It is contended that there are 22 members in the joint family and they require the suit premises bonafidely for personal use. It is contended that the space available to them in this house, which is of four rooms, is not sufficient. It is contended that the tenant can get similar premises anywhere and no hardship will be caused to him. It is contended that the defendant is a caterer and his entire family takes contract of catering and they make handsome income. Thus, relief of possession was claimed on aforesaid three grounds.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied that the previous owner had informed that the property was sold to plaintiff. It is his case that the information supplied by the plaintiff was not sufficient and it was necessary for the previous owner to inform him accordingly. He has denied that the agreed rent was Rs. 5/-per month. He has denied that the rent was payable as per the English Calendar. He has contended that in the past, the previous owner had created dispute about the rent and in a suit standard rent was fixed as Rs. 2/- per month.

5. It is the case of tenant that the rent was tendered by him to the previous owner but the previous owner refused to accept the rent. It is contended that he replied the notice sent by the plaintiff and he had sent the money order of Rs. 468/towards rent for the period 01.01.1979 to 31.12.1998, but this money order was refused by the plaintiff.

6. It is the case of the tenant that there is no premises available in that locality and greater hardship will be caused to him. It is contended that his monthly income is meagre which is upto Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- and he is somehow living on this income. He has contended that in his family, there is wife, two sons and daughter and they all are dependent on him for livelihood.

7. It is the case of the tenant that the landlord has not made necessary repairs and he is responsible for not making the repairs. He however denied the case of landlord that the premises needs to be vacated for making repairs.

8. The trial Court framed the issues on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. Both the sides gave evidence. The landlord examined himself to prove the bonafide requirement and he examined one photographer to show the dilapidated condition of the structure. The defendant examined himself.

9. The record like the notice issued by the landlord, sale deed executed by the previous owner is not disputed. In the evidence, the tenant has not disputed that there are 22 members in the family of the plainti