Advocates:
D. M. NARGOLKAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 321 of 1999

PETITIONER:

BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADA

RESPONDENT:

GOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2003

BENCH:

R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2003(1) SCR 329

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. A decree for eviction in a landlord-tenant litigation

upholding availability of ground for eviction u/s 13(l)(g) of the Bombay

Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter ’the

Act’ for short) but denying the relief of eviction based on the finding on

issue as to comparative hardship within the meaning of Section 13(2) of the

Act is under challenge in this appeal by special leave filed by the

appellant-landlord.

The suit premises are situated in the city of Pune and are described in

city survey as No. 573, Ravivarpet. The premises are the part of a building

having two wings and three floors, i.e. the ground floor and two upper

floors. The eastern wing is in the occupation of the landlord-appellant.

The ground floor is used as a shop. The first and the second floor are used

as residence for the appellant and this family. The western wing is in the

occupation of the tenant-respondent who runs a shop on the ground floor and

resides with his family in the upper two floors. The appellant’s family

consists of the appellant and his wife and four married sons, i.e. five

couples who live as joint family. They have nine grand children, as stated

at the Bar during the course of hearing. The suit property was purchased by

the appellant in the year 1973. In the year 1982 the landlord initiated

proceedings in the court of Small Causes. Pune for recovery of possession

over the premises as also for recovery of arrears of rent and education

cess. The grounds on which the eviction was sought for were (i) default in

payment of arrears, (ii) misuse of the tenancy premises, and (iii)

reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord for

occupation by himself and his family members as residence in the upper

floors and for the business of two sons of the appellant on the ground

floor. The Trial Court held against the appellant on all the three ground

for eviction. In an appeal preferred by the landlord the Appellate Court

too held against the appellant, upholding the findings of the Trial Court,

so far as the grounds of default in payment of arrears and misuse of the

tenancy premises in concerned and on both the grounds confirmed the

findings of trial court. On the ground of requirement, the Appellate Court

held that, so far as the upper two floors are concerned, reasonable and

bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation by himself and his

family members is made out and that the appellant would suffer great

hardship if the eviction is denied than the hardship which the tenant would

suffer in the event of eviction being ordered. So far as the ground floor

of the tenancy premises is concerned, the Appellate Court held that the

reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord for running the

business of his two sons in the tenancy premises is made out but then the

tenant would suffer greater hardship if evicted from the ground floor

compared with the hardship which the landlord would suffer in the event of

the eviction being denied. On these findings, the Appellate Court directed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

a decree for eviction being passed from the residential portion of the

tenance premises, i.e. the first and second floors but denied the eviction

so far as the non-residential part of the tenancy premises, i.e. the ground

floor is concerned.

Feeling aggrieved by the decree of the Appellate Court, both the parties

filed writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court has dismissed both

the writ petitions and refused to interfere with the decree of the

Appellate Court. So far as the decree for eviction from the residential

part of the p