1

1

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5637 OF 1988

1. Indubai Rama Gholap

Occ.household r/a 46, Ghorpadi

Bazar, Pune 411 001 ..

2. Shri Vijaykumar Rama Gholap

age 38 yrs. Occ.service r/a as above ..

3. Shri Dipak Rama Gholap

age 26 yrs. Occ.service r/a as above ..

4. Shri Anil Rama Gholap

age 23 yrs. r/a as above ..

5. Shri Suresh Rama Gholap, age 19

yrs Occ.Education r/a as above .. Petitioners.

Vs.

1. Shri Badrinarayan Mangilal Ghiya

since deceased by his heirs and

representatives,

1A. Mathurabai Badrinarayan Ghiya ..

1B. Vijya Badrinarayan Ghiya ..

1C. Arun Badrinarayan Ghiya ..

1D. Anil Badrinarayan Ghiya ..

All R/o 28, Ghorpadi Bazar,

Pune - 1. .. Respondents.

Mr.P.J.Shinde for the petitioners.

Mr.C.G.Parulekar for the respondents.

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

DATED : 18TH JANUARY, 2007

DATED : 18TH JANUARY, 2007

DATED : 18TH JANUARY, 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

. This writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the

concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in a

suit filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction on

the ground available under section 13(1)(g) of the

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control

Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). Mr.Shinde, learned

counsel for the petitioner-tenant at the outset

pressed this petition only on the point of hardship.

2

2

2

That apart, even otherwise the findings recorded by

the courts below holding that the respondent-plaintiff

requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for

their personal use and occupation warrant no

interference. In view thereof I consider the point of

comparative hardship contemplated under section 13(2)

of the Act.

2. There is no dispute that family of the

plaintiff and the defendant are very large. The

family of the plaintiff at the relevant time was

consisting of the plaintiff himself, his wife, three

married sons and their spouses, three children each of

two married sons and one son of the third son. In all

the members of the family of the plaintiff are 14. As

against this the defendant has 13 members in his

family consisting of three married sons, their

spouses, children and two unmarried sons. It has come

on record that the plaintiff was staying in a rented

premises bearing house no.28, Ghordpadi Bazar, Pune

consisting of one r