The court held that the landlord's demonstrated bona fide need for the property justified the eviction despite tenant claims of hardship.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both the parties, the petition is heard finally. To facilitate the final hearing the petitioners have tendered private paper book.

2. The petitioners – tenants, sufferer of an eviction decree ordered by Ld. 4^th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal, in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2011, decided on 31.12.2015 AND confirmed by Ld. Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Bhusawal, vide his judgment and order dated 20.04.2019, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2016, are before this Court vide present Civil Revision Application.

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties are referred as to their original status in the ld. Trial Court.

Petitioners Original Defendants @ Tenants Respondent Original Plaintiff @ Property Owner

3. Moot points considered

(i) Parameters to adjudge Owner’s bonafide need for possession of tenanted premises for personal use and occupation;

(ii) On the point of ‘hardship’ if both the parties are at equal, what is the end result?

(iii) Whether and when findings on facts can be interfered under Section 115 of C.P.C.?

(iv) Are the grounds under Section 16 (1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, mutually exclusive?

4. Facts in brief:-

4.1 The description of the suit property is as follows:-

Room No.1, in House No.4/132/2 (Old No.2369/2), situated in the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Bhusawal, which is bounded as under :-

Towards East - lane

Towards West - road

Towards South - lane

Towards North - Another room of the building

4.2 The Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Initially, one Bachai Janki Pali was inducted by the Plaintiff as tenant in the suit property. After his demise, his son Girdhari Bachai Pali became tenant in the suit property. Girdhari also died on 31.03.2008 and the present petitioners/Defendants are his legal representatives.

4.3 During his lifetime, Girdhari was served with attornment notice by the Plaintiff, i.e. present respondent (owner) on 25.12.2006. However, it was not collected by Girdhari.

4.4 It was the case of the Plaintiff that since 2004-2005, the Defendants were not residing in the suit premises. That, the tenants/Defendants purchased a residential house bearing Municipal House No.8/1091, Panchashil Nagar, near Buddha Vihar, Bhusawal, in the name of Defendant No.2. That, the said house was later transferred in the name of Defendant no.4. That Defendant No.2 started residing at Vitthal Mandir Ward, Bhusawal. That, Defendant No.5 got married and started residing with her husband at Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh).

4.5 As such, the Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendants were in no more need of the suit property, rather in fact the owner-Plaintiff was in bonafide need of the suit property for residential purpose to accommodate at least more than seven persons in his family.

4.6 That the owner's son was of marriage age and considering the growth in the family members, the owner was in bonafide need of the suit property. As such, the bonafide need was pleaded by the owner and it was demonstrated that there would be no hardship to the tenants, if they are directed to vacate the suit premises.

4.7 The Plaintiff further pleaded that the didn’t pay any rent since 20.05.2004. That, an amount of Rs.2490/- was outstanding as arrears of rent and Rs.1046/- was outstanding as tax amount towards Defendants. Plaintiff submitted that despite of the notice issued to clear the defaults, they failed to do so. As such, an additional ground of default in payment of rent was also pleaded in the plaint.

4.8 The Defendants in their reply, ultimately admitted the ownership of the Plaintiff. They however submitted that they were not in receipt of any attornment notice or any de