The judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this Revision Application filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18/02/2020, whereby the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, dismissed the Appeal No.460 of 2015 and thereby confirmed the eviction decree dated 17/04/2015 passed in RAE Suit No.1585/2321 of 2006.

2. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the Plaintiffs, and the Respondent No.4 and the Applicant were the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively and shall be hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiffs’ and ‘Defendants’ respectively.

3. The subject matter of the Suit was Room No.9 admeasuring 319 sq.ft. situated on the 1st floor of Liladhar Mansion, 90 Gulwadi Mumbai. The said room shall be hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit premises’.

4. The Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises. The case of the Plaintiffs is that Defendant No.1 was the tenant of the suit premises. By notice dated 17/05/2004, the Plaintiffs terminated the tenancy and called upon the Defendant No.1 to vacate and handover possession of the suit premises. The Defendant No.2 replied to the said notice stating that he is in possession of the suit premises which is being used for residential cum commercial purpose.

5. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction interalia on the ground that the Defendant No.1 has sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2 without prior written consent. The Plaintiff further claimed that he and 11 other members of the joint family are occupying about 400 sq. feet of carpet area, which is insufficient for their residence and raised a plea of bonafide and reasonable requirement.

6. The Defendant No.2 denied that the premises have been sub-let and claimed that the suit premises were let out to his father – Mahasukhlal and his brother Bhogilal Shah, who is the father of the Defendant No.1. Since 1954, Bhogilal Shah and his brother – Mahasukhlal Shah were occupying the suit premises for residence-cum-office use. In the year 1958, Bhogilal shifted to Ahmedabad and Mahasukhlal continued to be in possession of the premises. The Defendant No.2 claimed that he is an Income-tax practitioner and has been using the premises for residence-cum-office purpose. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiffs have more than sufficient space available for their residence and denied the plea of bonafide and reasonable use of the premises. The Defendant No.2 also claimed that he has no alternate office premises and that the decree of eviction will ruin his career and will thus cause undue hardship. The Defendant No.2 also denied the other grounds viz. non-user and non-payment of rent, etc. The Defendant No.1 adopted the written statement filed by the Defendant No.2.

7. The learned Judge of Small Causes Court observed that total 11 members of the Plaintiff’s family are occupying 03 rooms with total area admeasuring 400 sq. ft. The learned Judge observed that Jignesh Shah and Nikita Shah, the brother and sister-in-law of the Plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 have no independent premises of their own. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the children of the Plaintiff No.2 and 3 have since grown up and need their own space and privacy and further answered the issue of hardship in favour of the Plaintiffs. Based on these findings, the learned Judge by Judgment dated 17/04/2015 decreed the suit solely on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Defendants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench confirmed the findings that the premises presently occupied by 11 members of the Plaintiffs’ family are not sufficient for their use. The Appellate Bench has also held that Jignesh Shah and Nikita Shah do not have independent premises and that the grown up children of the Plaintiffs need their own space. The learned Judge observed that no hardship will be caused to the Defendant No.2 as he can easily get an alternate premises in the vicinity. Based o