The landlord's requirement for eviction must be proven as reasonable and bona fide, with consideration of alternative accommodations for both parties.

JUDGMENT :

In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 27^th April, 2018, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the non-applicants (original plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree dated 23^rd January, 2015, in Regular Civil Suit No.26/2007. In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the plaint. The applicant is the original defendant. The non-applicants are the original plaintiffs. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hinganghat. In the appeal, the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat, set aside the judgment and decree and allowed the appeal. The learned District Judge-1 granted the decree for eviction of the defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement as provided under Section 16(1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, “the Maharashtra Rent Control Act”).

2. The facts are as follows:

The plaintiffs are the owners of the house situated at Neharu Ward, Hinganghat, bearing House No.206 (old No.168 and recent M.H. No.207) on Nazul Plot Nos.39/1 and 40/2. The defendant is the tenant of the portion of this house admeasuring about 20x30 ft. The portion of the house in possession of the defendant would hereinafter be referred to as the “suit premises”. The suit premises has been used for the purpose of doing business since 1991. The father of the plaintiffs inducted the defendant in the suit premises as a tenant. The father of the plaintiffs died on 17^th August, 2001. The plaintiffs and their two sisters became the owner of the suit premises. Plaintiff No.1 is residing at Surat (Gujarat). Plaintiff No.2 has been looking after the suit premises. It is stated that, in the night of 3^rd February, 2006, there was a fire in the suit premises. The material part of the suit premises was destroyed. The suit premises has thus became unsafe for occupation.

3. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is doing service at Mohta Mill. He has been residing in the accommodation provided by the Company. The plaintiffs have proposed to construct a new house. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 retired on 15^th July, 2011. He has been employed as a retainer. It is a temporary job. The plaintiffs do not have a suitable premises for residence at Hinganghat. Similarly, they have no premises for starting their business for the livelihood of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs are in need of suit premises to provide a source of livelihood to plaintiff No.2. They do not have alternative accommodation for starting the business. The remaining house in their possession is used for residential purpose. It is their case that the defendant is having alternative accommodation in Jawaharlal Nehru Ward, Hinganghat. He can start his business there. The tenancy of the defendant was, therefore, terminated vide notice dated 11^th February, 2006. The defendant did not vacate the suit premises after receipt of the notice. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is having alternative shop premises, and therefore he would not suffer hardship in case a decree is passed.

4. The defendant opposed the suit. He has not disputed his relations with the plaintiffs as a tenant. He has stated that he has been doing business in the suit premises. He is an interior decorator. He has established his business in the premises since 1987. He has earned the goodwill for his business carried out from the suit premises. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs are having suitable alternative premises for doing the business as well as for the purpose of residence. The plaintiffs are financially well off. It is contended that, if he is required to vacate the premises, then he would suffer greater hardship, inasmuch as he does not have