[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

WRIT PETITION NO 2745 OF 1994

WRIT PETITION NO 2745 OF 1994

WRIT PETITION NO 2745 OF 1994

Smt. Shakuntalabai Deoram Thange,

Occupation-Household, Residing at

House No. 115, Ward No.4, Daund, ..Petitioner

Taluka Daund, Dist.Pune. Tenant,Orig-

Defendnat.

V/s

Shri Shaikh Mukhatyar Istaq,

Occupation-Business, Residing

at Gandhi Chowk, Daund,

Taluka Daund, District Pune. ..Respondent,

Landlord-Orig-

Plaintiff.

Mr. V.S. Gokhale for the petitioner.

Mr. P.K. Husingh for the respondent.

CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA J.

CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA J.

CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA J.

DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2005.

DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2005.

DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2005.

ORAL JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

. The petitioner-tenant has challenged the

judgment and order dated 23/6/1993, passed by the

Additional District Judge, Baramati (Appellate Court),

whereby, the suit of respondent-landlord for recovery of

possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide need

has been decreed.

2. Heard the learned Counsel, Mr. Gokhale,

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Husingh, the

learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent. The

[2]

tenancy is in respect of one room situated on the ground

floor of House No. 155, Ward No.4, Daund, District

Pune. After purchasing the property on 3/12/1984, the

respondent-landlord filed suit for eviction in the year

1986, in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D. Daund, Pune,

(trial Court),basically, on the ground of default and

bonafide need. Parties led evidence. The trial Court

after considering the material on the record dismissed

the suit. The appellate Court further, on the basis of

the same evidence, have appreciated the rival

contentions, as well as, material on the record, granted

the decree for possession. The learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner, apart from it submitted,

that the petitioner tenant is aged person and therefore,

greater-hardship would be caused, if she is evicted from

the premises. To this, the learned Counsel, appearing

for the respondent, referred the reasoning given by the

appellate Court that is para 12;

On the point of greater hardship, the learned

trial Court held that if the defendant is

evicted from the suit premises, she would come

on the street.It is pertinent to note that if

this only consideration is to weigh with the

Court, while considering the suit of the

landlord udner section 13(1) (g) of the Act,

then, in that event, it would not be possible to

pass any decree, as, always the