The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's bona fide need for additional premises and the objective standard for determining such need.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. A suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking ejectment of the defendants/respondents from the suit premises, used for business, on the ground available under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 having been dismissed by the Courts below; the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioners filed the suit for possession of 200 sq. ft. on the ground floor of a building consisting of a mezzanine floor and first floor purchased by the petitioners on 24.08.2001. The requirement pleaded by the petitioner in the plaint is about 500 to 600 sq. ft. for starting a transport business. It is pleaded that there are 8 to 10 employees of petitioners and area of 500 to 600 sq. ft. is required for their staff, visitors, who visit taking delivery of their goods or for booking their consignments. It is pleaded that though the petitioners have possession of a godown and premises on the first floor, the suit premises face the main road and is on the ground floor; therefore, it is suitable for their business of transport. The petitioners are running their business in the rented premises, and the landlord of the said premises has initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The respondents have filed a written statement stating that the petitioners have in their possession vacant area on the first floor of the building, admeasuring about 1800 to 2100 sq. ft., which can be used for establishing a transport office. Therefore, the shop of respondents has goodwill, and the respondents would suffer greater hardship if the decree is passed against the respondents. The respondents also raised objections about non-compliance with Order VII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’). By amending the written statement, it is stated that the petitioners have started using the mezzanine floor and open to sky portion of the open plot adjoining to the suit premises for transport business.

5. Petitioner no. 1 examined himself and also PW2 (Power of Attorney). Respondent no. 2 entered the witness box on behalf of the respondents. The respondents examined Civil Engineer to prove the nature of the suit building. The trial Court dismissed the suit by recording a finding that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact that there is a mezzanine floor in the suit building and have started using the mezzanine and first floor for their business. It is also held that the petitioners are using open space on the ground floor by putting plastic-sheet which satisfy the petitioners' need. It is held that the respondents have no place to carrying-on their business, and therefore they would suffer greater hardship.

6. The petitioners challenged the decree by filing an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that non-compliance with Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC, “sufficient vacant premises in the form of 200 sq. ft. godown on Eastern side, 600 sq. ft. area on the mezzanine floor and 1800 sq. ft. area on the first floor satisfy the need of the petitioners. It is also held that in the case of the decree, respondents would suffer greater hardship. The petitioners have therefore filed the present petition.

7. Shri Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff, has vehemently submitted that gross injustice has been done to them because the Courts below have misconstrued the concept of bona fide requirement. He submitted that the petitioners' business is undisputedly in rented premises on the ground floor. He submitted that although the petitioners have started their business on the first floor during the pendency of the proceedings, the said fact by itself is not sufficient to dismiss the suit of petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement. He submitted that it is not for the Courts below to say that the landlord should shift first or higher floors.