The bonafide requirement for eviction must be established and maintained throughout proceedings, and admissions in cross-examination do not negate established needs.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

1) Applicants have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 30 March 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 48/2013 and confirming the eviction decree dated 6 September 2013 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in RA.E. Suit No.196/479 of 2003. The eviction of the Applicants is ultimately upheld by the Appellate Court on the solitary ground of bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff.

2) Facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that Plaintiff claims ownership in respect of the property bearing Stable No. 93, comprising of 30 Khilas, Godown 20 ft x 15 ft and an open space 15 ft x 20 ft, situated at Chandrabali Rajnarayan Shukla Stable, Pump House, Jijamata Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 (suit premises). The original Defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises sometime in the year 1970. It appears that Plaintiff had earlier filed R.A.E. Suit No. 699/3681 of 1972 against the original Defendant for his eviction, but a settlement took place between the parties and accordingly fresh tenancy agreement dated 23 June 1984 was executed between them. Plaintiff instituted Suit being R.A.E. Suit No.196/479 of 2003 against the original Defendant alleging default in payment of rent, bonafide requirement of Plaintiff and his family members, commission of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy, nuisance and annoyance, erection of permanent structure without landlord’s consent and unlawful subletting. Defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement contesting the claim of the Plaintiffs. Based on the pleadings raised by the parties, the Trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. It appears that the plaint was amended alleging that newly added Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 (brothers of Defendants) were illegally and unauthorisedly occupying the suit premises and causing unauthorised construction thereon. That the premises were sublet by Defendant in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 4. That in the newly constructed room in the suit premises, some portion was illegally occupied by Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

3) After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit by judgment and order dated 6 September 2013 by accepting only two grounds of Plaintiff viz. bonafide requirement and commission of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy. The grounds of nuisance/annoyance, erecting permanent structure without landlord’s consent and unlawful subletting were however rejected. Defendants were directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff with further order of injunction restraining them from creating any third-party interests till delivery of possession. The Small Causes Court also directed a separate enquiry into mesne profits under the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 of the Code.

4) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed Appeal No.48/2013 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court challenging the eviction decree dated 6 September 2013. The Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Small Causes Court on the issue of commission of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy agreement. However, the ground of bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff has been concurrently accepted by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court accordingly proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by decree dated 30 March 2024. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Appellate Court, the Revision Applicants, who are Original Defendant Nos.1 to 5, have filed the present Revision Application.

5) Dr. Chandrachud, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants would submit that the Trial and the Appellate Courts have erred in accepting the ground of Plaintiff’s bonafide requirement. He would take me through paragr