The death of a landlord necessitates that a legal heir must establish their own bonafide requirement for premises independently, distinguishing it from the deceased's claims.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Petitioners/Defendants have filed this Petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 31 August 1998 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Satara, allowing Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1993 filed by Respondent-Plaintiff and setting aside the decree dated 4 January 1993 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, in Regular Civil Suit No.320 of 1989. The Trial Court had rejected the prayer of Plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit premises and had decreed the suit only to the extent of recovery of arrears of rent. While allowing the Appeal filed by Plaintiff, the Appellate Court has directed the Defendant to deliver the possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

2. The Petition was admitted by order dated 12 March 1999 and the eviction decree was stayed. During pendency of the Petition, Respondent/Plaintiff filed Civil Application No. 429 of 2012 for amendment of the Plaint for incorporating additional ground of bonafide requirement of the daughter of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. This Court allowed Plaintiff to amend the Plaint by incorporation of paragraph 9A therein and directed the Trial Court to frame issues relating to bonafide requirement of Plaintiff’s daughter as pleaded in amended paragraph 9A as well as the issue of comparative hardship. Both the parties were granted liberty to lead evidence on the issues. The record and proceedings were transmitted to the Trial Court for recording its findings on the said issues. After recording findings of the Trial Court same was directed to be transmitted to the District Court, which was also directed to record its findings on the additional issues and place the matter before this Court. The Writ Petition was kept pending.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by parties on additional issues of bonafide requirement of Plaintiff’s daughter and comparative hardship, answered the said issues in favour of Plaintiff holding that Plaintiff has established the bonafide need and requirement of the suit premises and that he would suffer greater hardship. The Appellate Court has however, reversed the said finding of the Trial Court by its order dated 17 February 2020 holding that amended paragraph 9A lacked pleadings regarding two independent needs of Plaintiff and his daughter and accordingly held that bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff’s daughter was not established. The Appellate Court accordingly did not go into the issue of comparative hardship. Accordingly, findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts on the issue of comparative hardship of Plaintiff’s daughter are placed before this Court and they also subject matter of challenge in the present Petition. During pendency of the Petition, Respondent/Plaintiff has passed away on 15 March 2022 and his daughter Shilpa Shonan Mankar, on whose behalf bonafide requirement is urged before me, is brought on record to represent the deceased Plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff is the owner in respect of the structure located on Plot No.157, City Survey No.81, Panchgani, Taluka-Mahabaleshwar, District-Satara. The structure comprising of ground plus one floor constructed on Plot No.157 on the ground floor, Plaintiff ran a medical store. Commercial structure situated on the first floor on Plot No.157 are the ‘suit premises’. Plaintiff’s father had inducted Shri Bhagwandas Sawant, a medical practitioner as monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises for running his dispensary in the same. The original tenant passed away and his wife-Smt. Sudhatai Bhagwandas Sawant (Defendant