The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds of willful default in payment of rent, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation, and reasonable and bona-fide need of the premises must be genuine and bona-fide to warrant eviction under the Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. GADKARI, J.

1. Applicant, original plaintiff has filed present Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) impugning the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2007 passed in R.C.A. No. 252 of 2002 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.2002 passed in R.C.S No. 462 of 1995 filed by the applicant.

2. Heard Mr. Sandesh Patil, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vinod Sangwikar, learned counsel for respondent. Perused entire record.

3. Applicant, plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of suit premises, description of which is more specifically given in Para No. 1 of the plaint and for recovery of arrears of rent thereof. The said suit was filed on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent; acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by the respondents and reasonable and bona-fide need of the applicant for his personal use and occupation.

It was the case of the applicant that, the respondents are his tenants and they alongwith their sons are residing in the suit property. The suit property came to the share of the applicant in furtherance of Partition dated 20.1.1987 in the larger joint family of the applicant.

That, the applicant is landlord and respondents are tenants in the suit premises. The respondents had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 225/- p.m. excluding electricity and water charges. Despite admitting said rent, respondents avoided to pay it. Respondent No. 1 had sent a letter dated 26.8.1992, making false allegations regarding excessive rent amount. Respondent No. 1 thereafter sent the amount of rent by way of Money Order in the year 1992. However applicant did not accept it, as according to him, it was insufficient amount. That, the respondent No. 2 had personally agreed to pay entire arrears of rent since April, 1987 as well as to vacate suit premises. However, he did not pay the said amount and became willful defaulter. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed Misc. Application No. 4 of 1993 for fixing of standard rent. However, the same was dismissed by the concerned Court on 3.7.1995. The respondents were thus, in arrears of Rs. 15975/- till August, 1995.

That, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were residing jointly in the suit premises. They had purchased one plot of land in Sangli in September, 1983. Respondents had assured the applicant that, they would construct house on the said plot and after completion of construction within a period of a year they would vacate suit premises. However, respondents sold the said plot of land to Mr. Rajendra Shah alongwith halfly completed construction on it. That, out of the sale proceeds of the said plot of land, respondents have purchased one flat in Swati Apartment, Gulmohar Colony, Sangli. That, respondents intentionally let out the said flat to some other person and are residing in the suit property. It was therefore alleged that, the respondents have acquired suitable alternate accommodation in Swati Apartment at Sangli.

It was further case of the applicant that, he required suit premises reasonably and bona-fide for the purpose of business of his son.

That, applicant’s son then had acquired B.E. Degree and intended to reside in the suit property as well as to start his own business in the open premises of the suit property. For the said purpose, applicant’s son had acquired licence and also completed necessary formalities to carry out his business. That, if the decree for possession is not passed in favour of the applicant, his son would be deprived from earning his livelihood and settling in his life. Applicant had therefore contended that, he will suffer greater hardship if decree is not passed in his favour.

Applicant, therefore issued a notice dated 30.5.1994 to the respondents terminating their tenancy and demanded vacant possession of the suit property alongwith arrears of rent. As the respondents did not pay arrears of rent and also refused to vacate the suit premises, applicant filed present suit.

4. Afte