The court upheld the eviction decree based on the landlord's bonafide requirement, emphasizing that subsequent events post-1999 Rent Act cannot negate established needs under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Thorat, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Viren Asar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

Challenge:

2. By the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 20^th February 2019 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.1038/1876 of 1998 as well as the Judgment and Decree dated 23^rd October 2024 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No.150 of 2019. Both the learned Courts have passed concurrent decree on the ground of acquisition of an alternate premises and on the ground of bonafide requirement.

Submissions of the Applicant:

3. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the Applicant raised the following contentions :-

i. Every time written statement has been amended pointing out certain aspects and thereafter the Plaint has been amended accordingly and thus Plaintiff has not come with clean hands. He submitted that therefore both the Courts have committed error in decreeing the suit on the ground of bonafide requirement.

ii. He submitted that the Plaintiff was in possession of the residential premises in an adjoining building consisting of about 1650 sq. ft. area on tenancy basis. The Plaintiff on 29^th August 2006 inter alia has surrendered the premises admeasuring 1650 sq. ft. in Sonawala Building, which is adjoining building on the ground that the Plaintiff and her family members did not require the said premises. It is, therefore the submission that the suit premises are not required bonafide for the Plaintiff.

iii. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has suppressed availability of the premises on the ground floor.

iv. It is the further submission of Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel that the subsequent events which have occurred after commencement of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (“MRC Act, 1999”) cannot be taken into consideration in a suit which has been filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Bombay Rent Act, 1947 ”). It is therefore his submission that the requirement which is now sought to be contended by the Plaintiff has arisen after 1999 Rent Act has come into force and therefore the said requirement cannot be considered.

v. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel relied on two Judgments of learned Single Judge in the case ofVishwanath Govind Lagu v. Smt. Usha Laxman Barve,2005 SCC OnLine Bom 944, and Shashikant Yeshwant Limaye & Anr. v. Chintaman Vinayak Kolhatkar & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine 914 to contend that the delay in filing the Suit on the ground of acquisition of alternate premises is required to be taken into consideration while considering the grounds of eviction under Bombay Rent Act.

vi. It is further submitted that the tenancy is a joint tenancy and therefore acquisition by one member of that joint tenancy cannot be a ground for eviction. To substantiate the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Vamanrao Vishwanath Falke v. Anusaya Rangrao Patil & Ors., 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 833.

vii. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ground of acquisition is not proved as the alleged acquisition is not by the Applicant.

Submissions of Respondents:

4. On the other hand, Mr. Viren Asar, learned Counsel for the Respondent raised the following contentions :-

i. He submitted that as far as the contention regarding suppression is concerned, the learned Appellate Court has considered the same and recorded the finding that there is no suppression. In that regard, he has pointed out paragraph Nos. 84 to 86 of the learned Appellate Court Judgment.

ii. As far as the bonafide requirement is concerned, it is the submission of Mr. Viren Asar that the suit premises are required by the Respondent No.1 i.e. the original Plaintiff and her family members i.e. two nieces.

iii. As far as 2^nd floor premises is concerned, which are in possession of Respondent No.1 i.e. the Plaintiff the said premises are re