The court ruled that a landlord's claim for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement is not established when evidence shows availability of alternate premises and no genuine need.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) This Revision Application is filed challenging the decree dated 8 October 2021 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 376/2017 filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.2 and confirming the eviction decree dated 26 October 2017 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court directing the Defendants to handover possession of the suit premises in addition to conduct of enquiry into mesne profits.

2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, Plaintiffs are owners and landlords in respect of the property known as Building No.4 situated on plot of land bearing CTS No.425, 12^th lane, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai 400 008. Defendant No.1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of Shop No.1 on the ground floor of the said Building No.4 on monthly rent of Rs.400/-, which are the ‘suit premises’. Plaintiff instituted R.A.E. Suit No.253/426 of 2011 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises alleging unauthorised subletting by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2. Plaintiff also claimed the ground of non-user as well as bonafide requirement of the landlord. The suit was resisted by Defendant No.2 by filing Written Statement that he is the son of Defendant No.1 and denied the allegation of unlawful subletting. Defendant No.2 also contested the grounds of non-user and bonafide requirement of Plaintiff-landlord. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective claims. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.1-Tenant passed away. In the Affidavit of Evidence, Plaintiff made a statement that he was not pressing the grounds of non-user and unlawful subletting though pleaded in the plaint. Thus, the suit proceeded on the sole ground of bonafide requirement of Plaintiff. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court answered the issues of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in favour of Plaintiff and proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and order dated 6 October 2017. Defendants were directed to handover possession of the suit premises with further enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Revision Applicant/Defendant No.2 filed Appeal No. 376/2017 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court challenging the eviction decree dated 6 October 2017. The Appellate Bench has however dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction decree by its judgment and order dated 8 October 2021. Defendant No.2/Revision Applicant has accordingly filed the present Revision Application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code.

3) Mr. Kachare, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that the Trial Court and Appellate Bench have erroneously accepted the ground of bonafide requirement for passing eviction decree against the Revision Applicant. He would take me through the averments in the plaint in support of his contention that the bonafide requirement as originally pleaded was that Plaintiff’s daughter-in-law needed the suit premises for the purpose of her business as Consultant in investment and Agency of Postal Savings, R.B.I. Bond Saving Scheme, ICICI Bond Saving Scheme, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance etc. That it