The landlord's bona fide requirement for additional living space for a growing family takes precedence over a tenant's claim to a property used occasionally for health benefits.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sathaye, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner/Tenant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2002 passed by 11^th Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 1062 of 1996, by which the appeal filed by Respondent/Landlord was allowed, thereby passing decree of eviction against the Petitioner. The Appeal-Court set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon (Maval) in Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1994.

2. The dispute is arising out of provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’ for short). The north-east side hall, kitchen and bed room of a bungalow on plot No.14, Municipal No. 270 (211), Survey No.70/3, City Survey Nos. 45, 46, 47 situated at Shri Datta Sahakari Grihrachana Sanstha (Teachers Society) Nangargaon, Lonavala, Taluka – Maval, District-Pune, is the ‘suit premises’. The Petitioner is Defendant and Respondent is Plaintiff. The parties are referred to in their original capacity for convenience and better understanding.

3. The Plaintiff filed the said suit seeking eviction of the Defendant on the grounds of non-user and personal and bonafide requirement i.e. under section 13(1)(k) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit premises was given on rent to the Defendant @ Rs.325/- per month. That the Defendant does not use suit premises for her own residential use. That she was working with Railways and her husband was also resident of Mumbai. That Defendant only resided in suit premises occasionally once in 10 to 11 months during holiday or vacation. That the Plaintiff’s family consists of 6 people and premises in their possession are only 3 rooms which are not sufficient. That the Plaintiff’s children are of growing age and they need more area. That the Defendant will not suffer any inconvenience if she is required to vacate the suit premises. That the Plaintiff required suit premises for personal and family requirement.

4. The Defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that the Plaintiff was well aware of permanent residence of Defendant in Mumbai as also about the fact that Defendant and her husband use to work at Mumbai. The case of occasional use is denied. It is contended that suit premises are taken on rent by her for residence in holiday and vacation. That Defendant was and is not keeping well and does not cope-up with climate of Mumbai. That the suit premises was taken on rent for change of climate and for residential use post retirement and this fact is known to the Plaintiff. That since Defendant and her husband work in Mumbai, they have to stay there. But the Defendant resides in suit premises on all holidays and vacation