The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction is best judged by the landlord, and a constituted attorney can testify on behalf of the landlord regarding personal knowledge of the need.

JUDGMENT :

1) Applicants have filed this Application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) challenging judgment and decree dated 7 July 2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.225 of 2004 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15 April 2004 passed by the learned third Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, by which Regular Civil suit No.258 of 2002 has been decreed. The Revision Applicants/Defendants are directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff with further direction for conduct of enquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code.

2) Shop premises admeasuring 600 sq.ft. situated in House No.3100/1-A, ‘A’ Ward, Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur, are the ‘suit premises’. Plaintiff/Respondent claims to be the owner of the suit premises, in which Defendants were inducted as monthly tenant for conduct of business in garments on monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 258 of 2002 in the Court of third Jt. C.J.J.D., Kolhapur on 7 March 2002 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of himself as well as of his two sons. Plaintiff contended that his family was in the business of jewelry for three generations and the Plaintiff and his two sons did not have any premises for conducting their independent business. That Plaintiff had merely 1/6th share in the partnership firm-‘Keshav Martand Chipade’ located at Gujari in Kolhapur. That Plaintiff wanted to commence independent business in the suit premises by himself as well as for his two sons. Plaintiff further contended that he was in possession of the premises admeasuring 150 sq. ft. divided by common wall with the suit premises. That his elder son-Deepak Chipade was conducting jewelry business in the said small shop admeasuring 150 sq.ft. That Plaintiff wanted to demolish the common wall and commence the showroom in combined shops admeasuring 750 sq.ft.

3) The Suit was resisted by the Defendants by filing written statement contending that Plaintiff had 3 to 4 jewelry shops in Kolhapur city in joint family and was earning huge income through the jewelry business. That Plaintiff was one of the highest tax paying Jeweler in Kolhapur city. That his family had possession of as many as 11 commercial and residential properties. That after securing tenancy in respect of the suit premises in the year 1969 after paying huge amount of pagdi (deposit) Defendants were carrying out business of readymade garments under the name-Anmol Dresses. They contended that neighbouring shop in the possession of the Plaintiff was admeasuring 300 sq.ft. Defendants accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

4) Based on the pleadings, Trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On behalf of Plaintiff Ms. Sulabha Chipade, daughter-in-law of Plaintiff was examined as PW1. Plaintiff also examined Anil Suryawanshi in support of his claim. Defendant examined its partner-Hitesh Motilal Shah and Dattatray N. Salokhe, Shahaji Salokhe and Pravin Patil in support of their case. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence the Trial Court proceeded to decree the Suit by judgment and order dated 15 April 2004. The Trial Court held that the Plaintiff proved that the suit premises is required by him and his family. The Trial Court held that Plaintiff established bonafide requirement of his son- Prafull in respect of the suit premises. The issue of comparative hardship was held in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Trial Court accordingly directed Defendants to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff with further direction to conduct enquiry into mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code.

5) Defendants filed R.C.A. No.225 of 2004 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kolhapur. However, by judgment and d