SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.S. Oka, J.
A1Engineering Works and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Rajendra Kasturchand Vora and
Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1223 of 1992 and writ Petition No. 5266 of 1993
Decided on 7.5.2010

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:D.S. Sabnis, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1A and 1B:Avinash Avhad and Amit Nikam, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Landlord cannot use plea of bonafide personal requirement as a ploy to induct new tenant.

Headnote:Tenancy—Eviction—Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947—Section 15(A)—Dismissal of eviction suit filed on ground of bonafide personal requirement of landlord—Appellate Court held that plaintiffs have proved that defendants have carried out construction of permanent nature without their consent in writing—Appellate Court passed decree on said ground—However, findings of trial Court on the issues of bona fide requirement and nuisance and annoyance were confirmed—A superstructure consisting of a mezzanine floor and a cabin above mezzanine floor has been erected by defendants during pendency of suit—Action of plaintiffs of letting out newly constructed first and second floors to a tenant during pendency of suit defeats plea of bona fide requirement—Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 6 , 8, 9, 11 and 12)

       Resut: Writ Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Oka, J.—These two petitions under Article 221 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by a common judgment as the same arise out of the same suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the trial Court. A suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1947). The suit relates to a shop premises admeasuring 23 ft X 17 ft in an Industrial Estate on Plot No. 427/46 at Gultekdi, Pune. The defendants are the tenants who are the partners of the firm M/s. A1 Engineering Works. The allegation in the suit is that the defendants have made a permanent cabin for their office in the suit premises without consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. Another allegation made in the plaint is that there is an open space in front of the suit premises in which the defendants are illegally and unauthorisedly storing goods thereby obstructing the plaintiffs and their customers while approaching the office of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that by demolishing two pillars of the compound gate, damage has been caused by the defendants to the plaintiffs’ property. It is alleged that the defendants have constructed a cabin for their office in the suit premises. The suit was filed on the ground that the defendants have carried out permanent construction. Another ground pleaded was of bona fide requirement on the ground that the plaintiffs are not possessing sufficient premises and though they have purchased a new machinery, the same was required to be kept in a temporary shed. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are unable to install the machinery due to lack of availability of the premises. The third ground for eviction is causing nuisance and annoyance.

2. The defendants contested the suit. The defendants contended that the claim of bona fide requirement was not genuine. It was pointed out that the plaintiffs have foundry premises on which two floors have been constructed. It is alleged that by accepting high rent the plaintiffs have let out the said new floors. Even second floor above the suit property has been let out. The defendants stated that only one wooden cabin is made in the suit premises and its channels and angles are not embedded into any of the walls of the suit premises. It is contended that the said office cabin was made with the consent of the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by holding all issues against the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the defendants against the decree.

3. The plaint was amended during the pendency of the appeal. It was pointed out that further changes of permanent nature were made in the suit premises in April/May 1987. It was pointed out that the wooden cabin was shifted on the mezzanine floor which was erected by the defendants by using mild steel channels and angles rested on ‘I’ beams. It is alleged that wooden cabin was completely shifted from the ground floor to the mezzanine floor. It was alleged that the same was resting on channels and angles. It is alleged that ‘I’ Beams are fixed in concrete foundation. It is alleged that the aforesaid channels/angles are embedded in walls in concrete. It was further alleged that a spiral staircase has been made for entering the cabin. It is stated that all these additions are of permanent nature. It was alleged that the defendants have increased the area of cabin. It is alleged that all these changes have been effected without the consent of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the changes cannot be removed easily and if any attempt is made to remove the same, the building is likely to get damaged. In the amended plaint, the plaintiffs contended that they were in possession of rented premises bearing House Nos. 358, 359 and 360 in Shukrawarpeth Pune. It was stated that in the said premises totally admeasuring 146.3 square meters, the pl






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top