2025:BHC-AS:40498 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4773 OF 2001 Pandurang Tatu Keni (since deceased) through his legal heirs & representatives 1(a) Smt.Varsha Vasant Gavand, Age-37 years, Occup. Not known, 1(b) Smt. Netra Pravin Gavand, Age-34 years, Occup. Not known, SNEHA NITIN Both of Mumbai, Indian CHAVAN Inhabitant, residing at Room Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN No.39-40, Group No.3, Tagore Nagar, Chawl CHAVAN Date: 2025.09.25 No.320, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai-400 083. ...Petitioners

15:42:06 +0530 Versus Laxman Sakharam Patil (Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs)

1A. Gangabai Laxman Patil, (deleted)

1B. Naresh Laxman Patil, Aged about 50 years, residing at Anant Patil Chawl, Deonargaon, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088

1C. Chandrakant Laxman Patil, Aged about 50 years, residing at Laxman Sakharam Patil Niwas Deonargaon, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088

1D. Vinod Laxman Patil, Aged about 46 years, residing at Anant Patil Chawl, Deonargaon, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088

1E. Nandu Laxman Patil, Aged about 44 years, residing at Laxman S. Patil Niwas, Deonargaon, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ...Respondents ****

Mr. Vijay Dhadam with Mr. Kush Lohankar for the Petitioners.

Mr. Ravi Kadam a/w Ms. Amruta Kundap for Respondents.

****

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

DATE : 23^th SEPTEMBER, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

Rule was issued on 14.12.2001.

2. The Petitioners are legal heirs of original Plaintiff who had filed R.A.E. Suit No. 5073/1980 against original Defendant. Plaintiff is landlord and Defendant is tenant. The suit was filed under provision of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (‘the said Act’ for short) seeking eviction of tenant from the suit property on grounds of default, non-user, change of user, acquisition of alternate suitable premises and personal bona-fide requirement. According to the averments in the plaint, the suit property is room No.1 (shop) in house No. M/4993 (2A) at Deonar village, Mumbai-400088. It is common ground before the Court that suit property is a shop and not an open piece of land.

3. During pendency of the said suit, the Plaintiff amended the plaint and added pleadings contending that he is without regular service or income and his daughter Charulata who is 28 years old non- matric person with knowledge of tailoring, need the suit property to start Plaintiff’s business of estate agency as well as for doing tailoring business.

4. Parties led evidence and the Trial Court after hearing both the sides, decreed the said suit on 19.08.1997 granting eviction, on the ground that the Plaintiff has proved his bona-fide reasonable requirement, that greater hardship is in favour of the Plaintiff and on the ground that the Defendant has acquired suitable premises for his business. The Defendant Tenant filed appeal No. 626 of 1997 challenging the said Judgment and decree of eviction. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, who had tried the said appeal, was pleased to allow the said appeal, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree of eviction and dismissing the suit.

5. Admittedly, during the pendency of the appeal, original Plaintiff-landlord has expired and daughter Charulata has got married. Apparently the appeal is restricted to ground of reasonable and bona-

fide requirement only.

6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners (present legal heirs of original landlord) contended that the Appellate Court has considered the subsequent events of original landlord passing away and daughter Charulata getting married, in perverse manner, inasmuch as the requirement as pleaded has not come to an end and cannot be said to be completely extinguished. He submitted that non-examination of daughter Charulata cannot be held as fatal, and the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate terms about use of landlord’s premises. He submits that the decision arrived at