IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

919 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2017

WITH

CA/9145/2017

JAGDISH LAXMINARAYAN OZA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

DEVANG KOSHTI SAMAJ MANDIR TRUST THROUGH TRUSTEES

GULAB SAKARAM DHOLE AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V. J. Dixit, Senior Counsel h/f

Mr. S. S. Kulkarni

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. V. S. Bedre

----

CORAM

: M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE

: 22^nd AUGUST 2019

PER COURT

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondent.

2.

The petitioners are tenants of the suit properties, which

comprises of two rooms admeasuring 1000 Sq. ft. The

respondent/landlord is Devang Koshti Samaj Mandir Trust, registered

under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The landlord issued a notice

terminating the tenancy of the petitioners. The suit was filed for

eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and for bona

fide requirement of the Trust under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay

2

919 cra 13-17

Rent Act. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of

default in payment of rent as well as bona fide requirement.

The Trial Court further came to the conclusion that more

hardship would be caused to the landlord/Trust if the decree is

not passed in favour of the landlord.

3.

The petitioners preferred an appeal before the first

Appellate Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed.

4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners invited my

attention to the plaint. According to him, the landlord/Trust did

not state any specific details or specifically pleaded as to what

is the bona fide requirement for which the premises are

required. Inviting my attention to para No.4 of the plaint,

learned senior counsel submits that the landlord only pleaded

that the plaintiff being a public trust, the premises in question

are required for the bona fide use of the plaintiff Trust for the

members of its community. Learned senior counsel would

submit that mere plea in the plaint that the premises are

required bonafide for the use and occupation of the plaintiff is

3

919 cra 13-17

not sufficient. He would invite my attention to the findings

recorded by the courts below which proceeds on the footing

that the premises in question are required by the landlord/Trust

for constructing a Marriage Hall for use of other religious

activities of the community also. He further submits that such

plea is not found in the plaint. He pointed out that this has

come for the first time in the deposition of PW-1 Gulabrao.

5.

Learned senior counsel would further urge that apart from

the evidence on record not being sufficient to prove the case of

reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord/Trust,

even as per the own case of the landlord/Trust, the premises in

question are required for constructing a Marriage Hall. It is

therefore his submission that the landlord/Trust wants to

change the user of the said premises from residential to non-

residential. It is his submission that such a conversion is

impermissible in view of Section 25 of the Bombay Rent Act.

Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Bapubhai Mohanbhai Vs. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir,

4

919 cra 13-17

reported in (1975) 2 SCC 492, learned senior counsel would

submit that, as per Section 25(1), landlord/Trust cannot

convert use of premises from residential to non-residential

purpose. He therefore submits that there can be no decree on

the ground of bona fide requirement as the residential

premises are intended to be used for constructing a Marriage

Hall. The said requirement would be contrary to the statutory

provisions contained in Section 25 of the said Act and

therefore, also the plea under Section 13(1)(g) must fail

according to him.

6.

Learned senior counsel would a