Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1662
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J
VIJAY YESHWANT VEDAK (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. ASMIT VIJAY VEDAK – Appellant
Versus
M/S. P. M SHAH AND CO. AND ORS. – Respondent
CRA 486 / 2022
Subsequent events must not wholly satisfy a landlord's bona fide requirement to deny eviction; the need must be assessed based on the situation at the suit's initiation.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 16(1)(g) - Eviction proceedings - The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court directing the eviction of the tenant were challenged on grounds of subsequent events that allegedly eclipsed the landlord's requirement - Court held that the need for the premises was not wholly satisfied despite the death of the landlord's family members and acquisition of alternate premises by them - The requirement for the suit premises was deemed reasonable and bona fide based on the evidence presented. (Paras 18, 26, 44)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a partnership firm, sought eviction of a tenant from the first floor premises due to insufficient accommodation for its partners and their families, citing medical ailments as a reason for the requirement. (Paras 3, 20, 22)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court concluded that the suit premises were required for the reasonable accommodation of the landlord’s family members, a finding upheld by the revisional court. (Paras 26, 44)
Issues: The main issue was whether subsequent events, including the deaths of the landlords, extinguished the bona fide requirement for the premises. (Paras 26, 44)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the bona fide requirement must be assessed based on the situation at the time of the suit's initiation, and subsequent events must not wholly satisfy the landlord's need to deny eviction. (Paras 44)
Result: Revision Application allowed; judgment of the Appellate Court and Trial Court quashed. RAE Suit No.631/1081/2002 dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked taking exception to the concurrent findings of the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 7th July, 2022 and the Trial Court vide judgment dated 2nd May, 2014 directing the Applicant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises.
3. The applicant herein is one of the legal heirs of original defendant No.5. R.A.E Suit No.631/1081 of 2002 was filed by respondent No.1 which was a partnership firm against the respondents herein for a decree of eviction. For sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their status before Trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that one Yeshwant Vedak was the monthly tenant in respect of the first floor premises situated at 480/82 Chira Bazar, J. S. S. Road, Bombay-400 002. Yeshwant Vedak had seven sons and in or about 1954, at the request of original tenant, the rent receipt of the suit premises was transferred in the name one of his sons Suryakant. In the year 1969, Suryakant shifted from the suit premises and relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of his other brothers.
5. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a partnership firm having two partners viz. Premchand Kasturchand Jain and Mangilal Okchand Jain. Premchand Jain is occupying the second floor of the building whereas Mangilal Jain is occupying the third floor of the building. Premchand Jain has three sons viz., Satish, Subhash and Jitendra. Satish is married and has two sons aged about 15 and 11 years. Subhash has one son and one daughter aged 13 and 11 years respectively. That Jitendra is aged about 30 years. That the children do not have any studying facility and the three bedroom, kitchen and hall premises on the second floor was short in accommodation for Premchand’s family. As regards Mangilal, it was pleaded that Mangilal had one son and 4 daughters. Mangilal’s son is married and has one son and three daughters and that the son is studying and one daughter is married and two daughters are unmarried. That Mangilal’s premises on the third floor consisting of three rooms, kitchen and hall is insufficient for the family. That the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required for the use of family members of the partners.
6. It appears that the plaint was thereafter amended and it was pleaded that Premchand’s son Satish has shifted from the suit premises and is residing elsewhere with his family due to insufficient accommodation. That Subhash is married and has one daughter aged 14 years studying in Std X and one son studying in Std. VIII. That Premchand’s other son Jitendra is married and has one son viz., Lavish and one daughter. That one room is used by Premchand and his wife and the second room is used by Jitendra and his wife and their children have no separate room for studies. That there are four children in the house and due to shortage of accommodation their studies are suffering. That their five daughters are married and they visit the house with their children and there is no proper accommodation.
7. As regards the requirement of Mangilal is concerned, by amendment it was pleaded that Mangilal and his wife have undergone bypass surgery and have been advised not to climb the staircase. That Mangilal has one son Dinesh and four daughters. That Mangilal’s son Dinesh is married and has three daughters, one of whom is married, and one son named Varsit aged 10 years. That premises on the third floor is consisting of three rooms and kitchen out of which one room is used by Mangilal and the other room is used by Dinesh and his wife, and, his two daughters and one son occupy one room. That Mangilal’s daughters frequently visit him and the premises is insufficient for their accommodation.
8. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 by filing their written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Suryakant and thei
