The court found that a bequeathed property with restrictive conditions does not qualify as suitable accommodation for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.

JUDGMENT : 

M. M. Sathaye, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, legal heirs of Defendant/Tenant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 20/09/2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2001 by 9^th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Pune by which Judgment and Decree dated 30/01/2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 629 of 1998 by Judge of Small Causes Court, Pune granting eviction decree, is confirmed.

2. The Petitioner (Hari Govind Ranade) is original Defendant/tenant in the said suit filed by the Respondent - Keshav Alias Suhas Nilkanth Dandekar, original Plaintiff/landlord under provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’ for short) for eviction from the suit premises - three rooms admeasuring 300 sq.ft. approximately on ground floor of building constructed in C.T.S. No, 1054, Janki Nivas, Shukrawar Peth, Tilak Road, Pune- 410002.

3. The Petition was admitted and interim stay was granted to the decree of eviction on 22/03/2006. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred in their original capacity as Plaintiff and Defendant.

4. The case of the Respondent-Plaintiff in short is that wife of Defendant is a daughter of late Dinkar Gangadhar Kelkar, who has started a famous ‘Raja Kelkar Museum’ in Pune. Deceased Dinkar was using about 3000 sq.ft. for his residence from out of buildings in his possession at CTS Nos. 1378 & 1385 at Shukrawar Peth. He died on 17/04/1990, bequeathing his properties by a Will in favour of his daughter, her husband (Defendant) and their sons. Defendant and his wife have shifted to these premises permanently and acquired large spacious suitable alternative accommodation and do not require the suit premises. That Defendant’s son ‘Sudarshan’ has also acquired a flat at Mayur colony, Pune and his another son ‘Sudhanva’ has also acquired a flat at Paud Road, Pune and they are also residing in their own premises. That since last several years suit premises are kept in locked condition. That the Plaintiff, his wife, one married son, grandchild and another son require the suit premises for their own use and occupation. Thus, the suit was filed for recovery of possession on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternate residence and non-user and for bonafide requirement. By way of amendment it was pleaded that Defendant has purchased a flat jointly with his 3^rd son ‘Surendra’ in Nilayam Society, Lokmanya colony, Pune.

5. The Defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that Defendant never resided in Kelkar museum premises and has been residing in suit premises. It is denied that deceased Dinkar was using and in occupation of 3000 sq.ft. for his residence in museum premises. That the deceased Dinkar was staying alone and was using a small kitchen and a little bigger room for sitting/sleeping and there are dispute about the Will of deceased Dinkar. That name of the Defendant’s wife is entered in the property record of CTS Nos. 1378 and 1385 as legal heir with other heirs, however it is denied that Defendant's wife has shifted to the place in museum. Case of suit premises being locked is denied. It is contended that Plaintiff's family has sufficient place/area in their possession. That the Defendant’s father-in-law deceased Dinkar was a great poet who used his property for collecting and preserving antique pieces. That deceased Dinkar was using only one kitchen and one room, which is given to Defendant's wife under Will. However, it is not possible to occupy the same as a suitable alternate residence. By way of additional written statement to amended pl