Landlords must demonstrate bona fide need and full disclosure of material facts; suppression of information undermines claims for eviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

By this civil revision application, the Applicants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, dated 21 June 2006, allowing the Civil Appeal No.83 of 1999 filed by the Respondents and directing the Applicants to hand over possession of the suit premises.

2 The premises in question is a shop on the ground floor of C.T.S. No.1383 situated within the limit of Pune Municipal Corporation. The premises were let out to the father of the Applicants and after his demise the Applicants continued as tenants, running the business from the shop premises. The Respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.1646 of 1988 in the Small Causes Court, Pune for eviction of the Applicants. The Respondents contended that there were 10 members in the family of the Respondents, they have only five rooms in their possession which were not adequate. The Respondent/Plaintiff No.2 who is an advocate, did not have any office premises. Plaintiff No.3 did not have commercial premises to start his business. Plaintiff No.2 had two sons and they also did not have premises to start their business. The daughters of plaintiff No.4 do not have any place for their school study. Accordingly, the suit was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. It was contended that since the Applicants have alternate premises, no hardship will be caused to them. Thereafter the suit was amended on 2 July 2004 and additional averments were incorporated stating that sons of plaintiff No.3 have completed education and, therefore, they need premises for business. A written statement was filed by the Applicants wherein the Applicants contended that the Respondents have various alternate properties which have not been disclosed by the Respondents and it was denied that no hardship will be caused to the Applicants if decree is passed.

3 Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence.

The suit was tried by the Small Causes Court, Pune. The Trial Court framed issues as to whether Respondents are entitled to recover possession on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Trial Court took into consideration the properties which were in possession of the Respondents. It came to the conclusion that the Respondents had suppressed the facts about rooms in their possession at Warje. It was noted that construction was going on in the property at Warje by name Parvati Sankul. The Trial Court also considered the oral evidence of the respondents and observed that, they were suppressing the fact about the property at Warje and the construction by name Parvati Sankul at Kondhwa. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings and the oral evidence, came to the conclusion that the need of the Respondents was not bonafide as they have suppressed material facts about the properties owned by them and accordingly, by the judgment and order dated 5 December 1988 dismissed the suit.

4 Respondents thereafter filed a Civil Appeal No.83 of 1999 in the District Court, Pune. The Appellate Court considered the issue of bonafide requirement. After considering the evidence produced on record, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the properties which were not disclosed either were not suitable for the need of the Respondents. The Appellate Court thereafter proceeded to hold that it will be landlord's choice to decide which property is suitable and, therefore, the choice of the landlord cannot be interfered with. The Appellate Court opined that there is no suppression as the properties which were brought on record by the admissions of the Respondents were not suitable. The Appellate Court accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 21 June 2006 allowed the appeal and directed the Applicants to hand over possession. Thereafter the present civil revision application is filed.

5 I have heard Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Applicants and Mr.Girish Paryani for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

6 Mr.Kulkarni primarily contended that no decree should have been passed in view of gros