The Court emphasized the statutory duty of the Court to make an enquiry into the extent of the landlord's need and the possibility of partial eviction, even if the bonafide need is found to be reasonable and bonafide.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. The tenants are before this Court challenging concurrent decrees passed against them by the two Courts below under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, thereby directing their eviction from the suit premises. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the landlords, who had initiated the said proceedings before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur.

3. The case of the said respondents was that being the lawful owners of Municipal House No.2 situated at Ward No.36, Mouza-Nagpur, Maskasath, Kirana Oli, Taluka and District – Nagpur, they filed a suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bonafide need. The petitioners were inducted as tenants in ground floor shop admeasuring 789 sq.ft and part of first floor admeasuring 120 sq. ft. in the said building for commercial use in the year 1990. They were inducted by Prabhadevi Motilal Hasoriya and after her death, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 became lawful owners of the said property and the tenancy was continued by executing an agreement on 01.01.2013.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that amongst his three sons, the elder son was assisting him in business and two other sons having turned major were interested in starting their own business and hence, the tenanted premises were required to start business, being suited for the said need. Similarly, the respondent No.2 pleaded that his elder son was assisting him in business while the younger son, having turned major, was interested in starting his own business and that the tenanted premises were best suited for the said purpose. On the basis of the said bonafide need projected on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, they sought eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.

5. The petitioners filed their written statement and denied the claims made by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Small Causes Court framed points for consideration and the rival parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined four witnesses in support of their case while the petitioners examined two witnesses.

6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, by judgment and order dated 10.02.2020, the Small Causes Court decreed the suit and directed the petitioners to handover vacant possession of suit premises to respondent Nos.1 and 2, within thirty days and also directed a separate enquiry to be held for future mesne profits as per Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In the process of holding in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Small Causes Court gave positive findings in their favour on the question of bonafide need, as also comparative hardship. It was specifically held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had succeeded in making out a case under Section 16(1)(g) of the aforesaid Act pertaining to bonafide need.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 34 of the said Act, before the District Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2021, the District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree against the petitioners.

8. In the present writ petition, on 14.06.2022, this Court issued notice on a limited question as regards Section 16(2) of the aforesaid Act, particularly second limb thereof, which pertains to the aspect of decree of eviction that could be passed for part of the premises in question. While issuing notice itself, this Court was satisfied that the findings rendered concurrently by the two Courts below, on the question of bonafide need, did not deserve interference. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in the matter through counsel and the petition was taken up for disposal.

9. Mr. Akshay Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted in the present case that the Courts below had completely ignored the requirement