The court reaffirmed that landlords have the primary right to determine their bona fide residential needs, absent clear evidence of bad faith or legal impropriety.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This Petition is filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 05/03/1993, passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No. 101 of 1987 arising out of judgment and decree dated 06/11/1986 in R.A.E. Suit No. 1247/6504 of 1975 passed by Small Causes Court, Mumbai in the said Suit. During the pendency of the Petition, the Petition was amended and the Order dated 6/04/2016, passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai confirmed by Order dated 28/11/2016 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 34 of 2016, came to be challenged. By the said impugned Judgdments/Orders, the Petitioners’ suit for eviction of Respondents, under provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short “the Rent Act), is dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, few facts necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:

2.1) The Petitioners are landlords and Respondents are tenants in respect of Flat No. 1A situated on 1^st floor, Alvorada building situated on plot no. 317, Off. St. Roques Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai -400050, which is the subject matter property (hereinafter referred to as “the suit flat”). It is a three bedroom, hall, kitchen flat with 3 WCs and bathrooms, having two separate entrances.

2.2) Original Plaintiffs Mrs. Bertha and Mr. Ross, a mother son duo, filed the said Suit against original Defendants-Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Yusuf, seeking their eviction from the suit flat on the ground of bona-fide requirement and illegal subletting.

2.3) The suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 28/04/1976. When the ex- parte decree was sought to be executed, it was obstructed. The ex-parte decree was set aside and suit was restored. Parties led evidence and by Judgment and Decree dated 06/11/1986, the Small Causes Court dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs filed appeal challenging the dismissal. By judgment and decree dated 05/03/1993, the Appeal also came to be dismissed.

2.4) The Plaintiffs filed the present Writ Petition challenging the said Order of Appeal Court. During the pendency of the Petition, Petition No. 1, Smt. Bertha expired and Petition No. 1A and 1B were impleaded as her legal heirs.

2.5) On 04/02/2010, this Court heard the Writ Petition alongwith pending Applications and Petitioners were permitted to amend the plaint incorporating additional pleadings. Parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court. The Defendants were permitted to file additional written statement. Parties were directed to adduce additional evidence only on the issue of bona-fide requirement and comparative hardship. The Trial Court was directed to record a finding on the issue of bona-fide requirement and comparative hardship after considering the original evidence and additional evidence and the finding was directed to be certified by Appeal Court after hearing the parties. The finding certified by the Appeal Court was called in this Court and it was directed that after such finding is received, the Petition shall be considered thereafter.

2.6) Accordingly, the Petitioners amended the Plaint. Additional written statement was filed by Defendant No. 1 after remand. Petitioner no. 2 – Mr. Ross examined himself. Petitioner No. 2C, Mr. Yohann (son of Petitioner no. 2) also entered witness box and examined himself. Wife of Defendant No. 1- Bernadette Rita Mary D’Souza examined herself as DW1. One more witness was examined as DW2, who is a officer of energy company. A medical officer from the hospital is also examined as DW3.

2.7) The Trial Court after considering the evidence and