D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is landlords revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the bombay Rent Act, 1947.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the landlord-revisionist filed a suit against the tenantrespondent for eviction on several grounds, viz. , the tenant being in arrears of rent for more than six months and had failed to pay the same after service of notice of demand and that the tenant created nuisance in the suit premises. Another ground for eviction was that the landlord bona fide required accommodation in suit for his residence because he has been asked by notice from the Municipal Board that he has to demolish first and second floors in his occupation which has become dilapidated and are dangerous to the life of the inmates of the house and also the neighbours.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted on variety of grounds upon which number of issues were framed by the trial Court.

( 4 ) FIRST plea of tenant being in arrears of rent was more than six months was not pressed by the revisionist - landlord in the trial Court. Hence no decree for eviction could be passed on this ground. Plea of nuisance could not be established by the landlord. However, according to the trial Court the landlord established that the disputed tenanted accommodation was bona fide required by the landlord for his residence to accommodate himself and his family members. Comparative hardship was also considered by the trial Court which came to the conclusion that in case decree for eviction is refused the landlord will suffer hardship and the tenant has failed to adduce any evidence of hardship what to speak of greater hardship in case decree of eviction is passed against him.

( 5 ) THE matter was taken in appeal. The Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the disputed accommodation was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. Still the Appellate Court disagreed with the reasonings and findings recorded by the trial Court that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in case decree for eviction is refused. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Hence this revision.

( 6 ) I have heard Mr. P. B. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the revisionist and have considered the two judgments on record and also provisions of Sec. 13 (g) of the Bombay Rent Act and also sub-sec. (2) thereof.

( 7 ) SECTION 13 (1) (g) provides that the decree for eviction against tenant can be passed if the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held.

( 8 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of Sec. 13 provides that no decree for eviction shall be passed on the ground specified in clause (g) of sub-sec. (1) if the Court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. It further provides that where the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only.

( 9 ) THUS, from the above provision the scheme of the statute is manifest. Initially, it is for the landlord to establish that he requires the premises let out to the tenant for his bona fide use. Word bona fide means not mala fide. It is for the landlord to establish that he requires premises reasonably for his bona fide use or for bona fide use of the members of his family. If bona fide requirement of the landlord is established then the Court has to compare relative hardship to the tenant and landlord and as contemplated in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Act. While comparing such hardship the Court has to consider entire evidence adduced by the landlord and tenant and then it should form opinion as to who will suffer great

Click Here to Read the rest of this document