Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
M.M.SATHAYE
Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti – Appellant
Versus
Govindram Shobharam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. This Civil Revision Application under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) is filed by Plaintiff-landlord challenging the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12/09/2024 passed by District Judge-2, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2018. By the said impugned Judgment and Decree, the said appeal filed by Respondent-Tenant was allowed, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03/07/2018 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 267 of 2010, thereby dismissing the said suit.
2. The Revision Applicant is landlord and Respondent is tenant. The said suit was filed by the Revision Applicant for eviction of the Respondent, which was decreed granting eviction. However, it is set aside by the Appellate Court.
3. Few facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under.
3.1. The Revision Applicant filed said suit contending inter alia that premises on the ground floor of structure at City Survey No. 670 admeasuring 73 ft. 6 inch x 16 ft. 9 inch is the suit premises which is in possession of the Respondent as monthly tenant since the time of father of the Plaintiff. That monthly rent is Rs.104.2
The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction is established even if he owns other properties, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's use of his properties.
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.
The bona fide requirement for landlord's premises must be substantiated with evidence, and landlords retain the right to determine their needs for personal or business use.
The judgment establishes the principles of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the context of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The court established that a landlord's genuine need for premises must be objectively assessed, and failure to seek alternative accommodation can negate a tenant's claim of hardship.
The landlord's requirement for eviction must be proven as reasonable and bona fide, with consideration of alternative accommodations for both parties.
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.
Purpose of bona fide requirement of a landlord what is required is that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
