The landlord must establish bonafide and reasonable requirement for eviction, and the suppression of material facts can lead to adverse inference against the landlord.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this Civil Revision Application, the applicant landlord (plaintiff) has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021, passed by the District Judge-2, Parbhani in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2013, by which the Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court and passed eviction decree under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short “the Rent Act”). The eviction decree was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement as contemplated under section 16(1)(g) of the Rent Act. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the ground of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship whilst the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for possession decree on said ground.

2. The facts necessary to decide this revision in brief are that, plaintiff Sulochanabai was the owner of the suit property which is particularly described in para 1 of the plaint. The suit property is consisting of three storeyed building out of which on the ground floor the defendant - tenant was running utensils shop, whilst on upper two floors the tenant was residing with his family. The suit property was initially let out to defendant’s father in the year 1974 under lease deed, on monthly rent of Rs.800/- which was increased to the tune of Rs.1000/- per month. After demise of original tenant the plaintiff continued the tenancy. The suit property situates in market area.

3. It is plaintiff’s case that she has three sons who are engaged in different kind of business. Though her three sons are running separate businesses at different premises, however, the business run by her two sons, namely, Vikas and Vishal situates in interior lane and therefore not suitable for business purpose. The existing area occupied by her sons was not within the market area and therefore they could not flourish their business. It is plaintiff’s case that her sons wanted to establish their business in the market area i.e. in the suit property. Moreover, it is plaintiff’s case that at present her three sons are residing jointly with her in one tenement. They desire to reside separately for which also they are in genuine need of the suit property. Further the plaintiff came with a case that her two daughter-in-law are desiring to start new business of ladies emporium, garments and gift center, for which also they require the suit premises. Precisely the plaintiff has put up a case that the suit property is reasonably and bonafide required for her family for business as well as residence.

4. The plaintiff has also put up case that the suit premises is quite old and in dilapidated condition. The plaintiff desires to demolish the suit premises and to reconstruct new building and for that purpose also possession is sought. Though landlord can seek possession of tenanted premises for the purpose of demolishing the property and erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished under section 16(1)(i) of the Rent Act. However, no such specific case was made out to seek possession under said clause, for which pre-requisites of section 16(6) of the Rent Act has to be complied. The landlord has neither put up such specific case nor argued.

5. The defendant tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement. The defendant has not disputed about the landlord tenant relationship and amount of rent. The tenant has also not disputed that on ground floor he is running utensils shop whilst upper two floors were used for residential purpose. The tenant has seriously doubted the bonafide need of the landlord for the purpose of business as well as residence. It is contended that the landlord has several residential and commercial properties within the city limits. The existing premises of landlord is quite sufficient for the purpose of business. Some of the vacant properties are in possession of landlord and they are suitable to cater the need of landlord. As against this, he has no other business as well as residenti