Heirs of a deceased landlord must establish their own bonafide requirement for eviction; the original requirement does not automatically extend to them.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the decree dated 13 November 2021 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No.35 of 2013, by which the Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal and has set aside the decree of the Small Causes Court dated 31 January 2013 passed in RAE & R Suit No.613/1164 of 1998. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit directing the Applicant/Defendant to vacate the possession of the suit premises. The Revision Applicant/Defendant is aggrieved by the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court and has accordingly filed the present Revision Application.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that Shop No.13 situated on Plot No.177, TPS-IV, Mahim Division, Mumbai, admeasuring 38.21 square feet carpet area located in Miranda Chawl were the original suit premises. It appears that original Plaintiff Shamrao Dinananth Bhatte was the tenant in respect of the said Shop No.13 in Miranda Chawl. It appears that Defendant was inducted in the suit premises by Plaintiff Shamrao Dinanath Bhatte for conducting the business of cycle repairing in the year 1962. Defendant filed a declaratory suit in Small Causes Court, Mumbai seeking a declaration that she is the tenant in respect of the suit premises on the basis of her possession as on the cut of date of 1 February 1973. By decree dated 2 April 1980, the Small Cau ses Court declared Defendant as deemed tenant in respect of the suit premises. It appears that during pendency of the said suit, Miranda Chawl was demolished by Shri Shiv Sena Trust, which proposed construction of the new building at site. The Small Causes Court therefore directed the Trust to handover possession of alternate premises in the newly constructed building to the Defendant. Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against declaratory decree dated 2 April 1980 was dismissed by the Appellate Bench on 13 August 1981. Writ Petition preferred by Plaintiff before this Court was also dismissed on 26 February 1997. It appears that in the newly constructed building, Shop No.2 was given in possession of the Defendant.

.3 In the above background, Plaintiff instituted RAE & R Suit No.613/1164 of 1988 for eviction of Defendant on the grounds of bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent. During pendency of RAE & R Suit No.613/1164 of 1988, the reconstructed building by Shri Shiv Sena Trust was again required to be demolished on 4 March 2004 and new building has been constructed at the site in which suit premises are allotted and put in possession of the Defendant.

4. Plaintiff pleaded that he required suit premises for bonafide need of carrying out cycle repair shop with the help of his son as the cycle repairing shop conducted by him in another licensed premises was not suitable and he wanted to shift the said business to the suit shop. Plaintiff also pleaded that Defendant failed to pay any rent or compensation in respect of the suit premises. He relied upon order dated 2 April 1980 passed in RAD Suit No.5472 of 1975 under which Defendant was declared as a deemed tenant in respect of the suit shop and Plaintiff was declared as deemed landlord. It appears that the Plaint was amended as Shri Shiv Sena Trust once again decided to rebuild the structure and executed Agreement dated 4 March 2004 with the Plaintiff for handing over permanent alternate accommodation admeasuring 38.21 square meters in the newly constructed building of the Plaintiff on tenancy basis. This is how Plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendant on the ground of bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent. The suit was resisted by the Defendant by filing Written Statement denying the ground of bonafide requirement as well as non-payment of rent. Based on the pleadings raised by the parties, the Small Causes Court fr