The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction is established even if he owns other properties, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's use of his properties.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandip Kumar Chandrabhan More, J.)

1. The present applicant who is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2014 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jalna ("the First Appellate Court" for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 157 of 2018, whereby the eviction order against the present applicant has been passed, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna ("the learned Trial Court" for short).

2. Brief facts of the present application is as under :

The applicant is the tenant in suit house bearing No. Municipal Plate No. 1-20-10, CTS No. 966, admeasuring 113.7 Sq. Meter situated at Rajendra Prasad Road, New Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. The present respondent is original plaintiff and landlord, who filed the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2014 for eviction of the applicant - tenant on the ground of default in-payment of rent as well as bona fide and reasonable requirement. According to the respondent - landlord, the applicant - tenant had agreed to pay rent of the suit house of Rs. 550/- per month, but the applicant - tenant was not paying the rent regularly and, therefore, he was in arrears of rent from 01.09.2002 till 30.09.2013 i.e. for the period of 49 months, amounting to Rs.26,950/-. Accordingly, the respondent - plaintiff issued legal notice dated 14.09.2013 demanding the aforesaid arrears of rent. Though the applicant - tenant on receipt of said notice paid the amount of Rs.26,950/-, but according to the respondent - landlord entire arrears of rent where not paid and, therefore, the applicant - tenant became willful defaulter and liable to be evicted under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In addition, the respondent - landlord also claimed eviction of the applicant - tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the same for his own use and occupation. According to the respondent - landlord some dispute arose among the ladies in the family and, therefore, he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.

3. On the contrary, the applicant - tenant resisted the suit by filing written statement at Exhibit - 12 and came with the case that, the respondent - plaintiff was not collecting the rent and when the respondent and his mother refused to accept the rent, he had sent the rent amount by cheque issued in the name of mother of respondent but it was refused. The applicant - tenant also contended that, he tried to sent the rent amount to the respondent - landlord from time to time through various modes, but the respondent - landlord did not accept the same. In respect of requirement of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide use, the tenant denied the said aspect and claimed that the respondent - landlord owned and possessed several other properties in Jalna city, which can be used to satisfy his bona fide needs. As such, he claimed dismissal of suit. The learned Trial Court after conducting the trial, dismissed the suit of the respondent - landlord by giving negative finding on the aspect of willful default as well as bona fide requirement. However, learned First Appellate Court in the aforesaid appeal though kept the negative finding on the aspect of willful default as it is but evicted the applicant - tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of respondent - landlord in respect of the suit premises. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for applicant - tenant vehemently argued that, the learned First Appellate Court though negatived the contention of respondent - landlord about the willful default on the part of the applicant - tenant in respect of payment, but wrongly observed that the respondent - landlord established his claim of possession of the suit house on the ground of bona fide requirement. According to him, there is no whisper in pleading of respondent - landlord as to what was the nature of d