Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 20473
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ANIL S. KILOR, J
Shri Ashok S/o Kiranrao Kondawar Since deceased Through Legal Representatives – Appellant
Versus
Shri Sunil S/o Ramvallab Sarda – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3746 of 2022 | Regular Civil Appeal No. 425 of 2019 | Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri P.S.Khubalkar
For the Respondents: Shri R.N.Sen
Landlords must substantiate bona fide needs for eviction claims; mere desires are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Sections pertaining to eviction and bona fide requirement - Plaintiff filed for eviction claiming bona fide need for son’s business purpose, but Appellate Court reversed decision citing lack of evidence. - The landlord must provide substantial material for his bona fide claim, not merely a desire. (Paras 16-22)
(B) Appeal - Appellate authority must not disturb trial court’s decision unless perverse - Evidence shows that trial court’s findings on bona fide need were justified and not fanciful. (Paras 9-11)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff landlord sought eviction of a tenant for non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement for business. The trial court ruled in favor of the landlord, but the appellate court overturned this decision, questioning the sufficiency of evidence provided.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court’s reversal was deemed erroneous as it lacked consideration of the trial court's justified findings based on the landlord’s bona fide requirement.
Issues: Was there sufficient evidence supporting the landlord's bona fide requirement, and did the appellate court err in reversing the initial ruling?
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must uphold a landlord’s bona fide need unless essential details are glaringly absent; Appellate courts cannot disregard findings based solely on alternate views.
Result: Writ petition is allowed; the appellate judgment is quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and background of the eviction case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court observations regarding bona fide requirement (Para 8 , 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties on evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. ratio decidendi concerning the basis for bona fide needs (Para 13 , 19) |
| 5. final decision allowing the writ petition (Para 23) |
1.In this writ petition, question raised to the impugned judgment and order dated 15th January, 2022 passed by District Judge-1 & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 425 of 2019, reversing the decree of eviction granted by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2015.
2. The brief facts of this case, are as follows :
Landlord Shri Ashok Kondawar filed a suit for ejection, possession and arrears of rent. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the plaintiff. Whereas, the respondent is the tenant/defendant.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the Shop Block No.1, situated Sumangal Apartment, Plot No.45, Greter Nagpur Co-operative Society, Ramkrishna Nagar, Nagpur. It is stated that tenant was given the suit shop after execution of leave and licese agreement on 1st February, 2013.
4. The ejectment and possession was claimed by the plaintiff is on the ground that the defendant is irregular in paying rent amount and the cheque which was issued on a request made by the landlord for payment of arrears of rent, was dishonoured.
5. It is further stated that the suit shop needed for bona fide requirement for starting business by his son. The another ground was about carrying out alterations by the respondent in the suit shop without permission of the plaintiff.
6. The defendant filed his written statement at Exhibit 17 and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. However, though the plaintiff examined himself, the defendant failed to cross-examine the plaintiff and further failed to adduce any evidence in his favour.
7. Thus, after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and thereby directed the defendant to vacate the peaceful possession relating to suit property and inquire into future mense profit under Order XX Rule 12(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. The defendant thereafter carried out the said judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2018 in appeal filed under Section 26-A of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act read with Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act . The learned lower Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and reverse the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the same is under challenge.
9. Shri Khubhalkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in absence of any cross-examination of the plaintiff and without adducing any evidence adduced by the defendant, the learned lower Appellate Court recorded findings contrary to the evidence and thereby committed perversity.
10. It is submitted that though sufficient evidence has been produced to establish that the bona fide requirement, the findings as regards the bona fide requirement has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court without recording sufficient reasons.
11. It is submitted that only because another view is possible the Appellate Court cannot disturb decision arrived at by the trial Court.
12. Shri Khubhalkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava , 2001(2) SCC 604
13. On the other hand, Shri Sen, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent submits that lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court after recording the reasons. It is submitted that from the title clause itself it is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that son of the landlord is in service and her sisters are not in need of the suit premises. It is submitted that the bona fide requirements there
