High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 cra 62.23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2023Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd.Through its Chairman(Manager)Shri Baburao Kautik Patil.. PetitionerVersusDashrath Dharu ChaudhariSince deceased through his L.Rs.Uddhav Dashrath Chaudhariand others.. RespondentShri Subodh P. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri Anil S. Abhyankar a/w Shri Navin S. Shah h/f S. V. Natu, Advocate for the Respondent.CORAM :SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.CLOSED FOR ORDER ON :20.08.2025ORDER PRONOUNCED ON:03.09.2025FINAL ORDER :.Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.2.Petitioner is a tenant, who has suffered decree of evictionon the ground of bona fide requirement passed by the Trial Courtin R.C.S. No. 42 of 2003, which is confirmed by the lowerAppellate Court in R.C.A. No. 27 of 2014. It is invokingjurisdiction U/Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for thesake of convenience and brevity hereinafter referred as to the‘C.P.C.’).
Legal Reasoning
2 cra 62.233.The controversy pertains to northern side five roomscomprising of 60 x 40 feet of C.T.S. No. 797/2 situated atNandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar owned by the respondent.Petitioner was a tenant, who was allotted the premisessomewhere in 1962 for non residential purposes. Both theparties are at variance on the monthly rent payable to therespondent – landlord. As default is not the ground pressed intoservice by the respondent – landlord, the dispute about rent isnot relevant. Petitioner is a cooperative society and it runs abusiness of selling seeds, pesticides, medicines and allagriculture related equipments in the demised premises.4.Respondent filed suit for eviction U/Sec. 16(1)(g) of theMaharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for the sake of convenienceand brevity hereinafter referred as to the ‘Act’). It is claimedthat premises is needed for grandson Chandrakant, nephewSanjay and Jagdish for business and commercial activity. It iscontended that southern five rooms in occupation of therespondent are inadequate and there is no suitable andconvenient premises available. It is further contended that thepetitioner owns number of properties, many of which are alreadylet out. The petitioner can accommodate it’s activities in thepremises available with it and there would be no hardship.5.Petitioner contested the suit by filing written statementdenying that there was no joint family and nephew or thegrandson are not members of the same. It is contended that need 3 cra 62.23is false and already adequate premises is available with therespondent. Additionally, it is stated that the demised premisesis convenient not only for the petitioner, but for the beneficiariesand the agriculturists. It is further contended that the tenants ofthe petitioner have not vacated the premises and suits arepending for eviction.6.Respondent examined two witnesses one is himself andanother is Chandrakant, his grandson. Petitioner examinedmanager Mr. Anandrao Patil.7.Both the Courts below held that the respondent is entitledto receive the possession on the ground of bona fide requirement.The issue of hardship is also answered in favour of therespondent - landlord. It is concurrently held that petitioner ishaving a multi storied building and it has twelve to thirteentenants. One of the tenants i. e. State Bank was evicted part ofthe premises. Both the Courts below took cognizance of theadmissions given by the petitioner’s witness in the crossexamination.8.Learned counsel Mr. Subodh P. Wani appearing for thepetitioner canvassed following submissions :IThe requirement of the respondent is neither bona fide, norreasonable. The persons for whom the requirement is tried to beshown are not dependent on the respondent. 4 cra 62.23IINo joint family of the respondent exists. There is alreadypartition and members are separate, which is clearly admitted bythe witnesses of the respondent.IIIUndue reliance is placed on the evidence of the petitioner’switness.IVThere is no adequate material on record to corroboratebona fide requirement and hardship.VCourts below committed perversity in holding thatrespondent’s family is joint and findings of bona fide requirementare based on conjuncture and surmises. VINo specific findings are recorded on the issue of hardship.9.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Anil Abhyankar appearingfor the respondent would support impugned judgments anddecrees. He would submit that there are concurrent findings offacts, which are based on material on record and which arereasonable and plausible. It is submitted that respondent isentitled to claim the premises not only for his need, but for therequirement of his grandson and nephews or members of thefamily. It is submitted that demised premises is at the front sideand most convenient for business. It is further submitted thatwitness of the petitioner has given vital admissions, which arerightly appreciated by the Courts below. It is further submittedthat the petitioner is owner of huge building at prime locationand has adequate premises to shift its business. Couple of 5 cra 62.23tenants vacated the premises and against few of the tenantssuits are pending. It is also submitted that present revisionapplication is not tenable.10.Mr. Anil Abhyankar, learned counsel for the respondentraised a plea that present revision application is not tenable. Forthat purpose reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani andanother Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi deceased through his heirs andL.Rs. reported in 1997(3) Bom.C.R. 01. I am not inclined to acceptthe plea. It is settled legal position that civil revision applicationU/Sec. 115 of the C. P. C. is tenable. In the present case, writpetition was filed, which is converted into revision. It is truethat all species of hardship or wrong decision cannot be correctedby the High Court, but jurisdiction of the High Court cannot beexcluded altogether. This Court has jurisdiction to entertainrevision as it is laid down in the matter of Hindustan PetroleumCorporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78.11.Admittedly, southern side portion is in possession of therespondent – landlord and five rooms on the northern sidesituated within 60 x 40 feet is the demised premises. It needs tobe clarified that the petitioner had let out the premises for nonresidential purpose. The requirement pleaded in para Nos. 3 and4 of the plaint and the evidence pertain to non residentialpurposes i. e. for starting computer classes, medical shop or thebusiness. Therefore a stray reference in the deposition of P.W.No. 2 that suit premises is required for demolition of old 6 cra 62.23structure and constructing new building cannot be entertained.The decree has not been passed on that ground.12.I have gone through the deposition of the P.W. No. 1. Myattention is adverted by the learned counsel Mr. Wani to hiscross examination. Respondent is the owner of the property andhe wants the premises for business of or settling down hisgrandson and nephews. He has admitted that in the year 1958partition took place, but further clarified that it was nominal andmembers are still residing together. The houses and theagricultural lands allotted to them are stated to be separate. ThisCourt need not go into the niceties of partition by metes andbounds or joint family status of the respondent and his familymembers. It is immaterial as to whether their residence oragricultural occupation is separate or not. The requirementpressed into service by the respondent is for starting business forfew of the family members.13.It has not come on record that grandson Chandrakant ornephews Sanjay and Jagdish were having independent andadequate business ventures at suitable places, when suit wasfiled. It is not requirement of law that the persons for whom thepremises is required have to be dependent on the landlord. Inpresent case they are close relatives of the respondent and ifpremises is required for their settlement, then there is nothingunreasonable. Notwithstanding the partition, the relationshipsubsists. Considering frontage and location of the demisedpremises, if respondent wants the premises for starting business 7 cra 62.23for his family members, bona fides cannot be doubted.14.It has come on record that grandson Chandrakant is adiploma holder in pharmacy and has experience and is in need ofpremises to start a shop. Sanjay a nephew is having requiredqualification to start the computer classes. Jagdish anothernephew of the respondent is an engineer and he needed premisesto start business. The requirement pressed into service by therespondent – landlord is genuine and reasonable. It cannot besaid to be mere desire or imaginary.15.I find no merit in the submissions of the learned advocateMr. Wani for the petitioner that respondent owed no duty tosettle members of the family due to partition. The crossexamination of the respondent and Chandrakant does notelucidate anything useful to the petitioner. Both the witnessescorroborated plea of bona fide requirement. This Court cannot beoblivious of the fact that the premises in question is at the primelocation surrounded by commercial activities where any personwould like to start the business. Simultaneously, there ismaterial on record to indicate that southern side premisesavailable with the respondent – landlord is inadequate.16.Mr. Anil Abhyankar, learned advocate is right incontending that Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act contemplates need of thelandlord himself or any person for whose benefit the premisesare held. The requirement pressed into service is clearly covered 8 cra 62.23by Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act. The concurrent findings of factsrecorded by both the Courts below cannot be faulted. Those arereasonable findings supported by evidence on record. It is tritelaw that neither tenant, nor this Court can determine or regulateneed of the landlord. Landlord is best judge of his need andsuitability of the premises. 17.Both the parties pleaded and led evidence on comparativehardship. An issue to that effect was also cast in the Trial Courtas well as lower Appellate Court. Trial Court dealt with thatissue in para No. 16 and Appellate Court in para No. 50. Thesubmission of the petitioner that issue of hardship has not beenprecisely dealt with cannot be accepted. I find that both theCourts below considered material on record and the case lawsalso in answering issue in favour of the respondent – landlord.18.In written statement petitioner did not dispute that it isowner of a building and there are tenants in it. It transpires thatproceedings for eviction against them are pending. One of thetenants is the State Bank. Oral evidence of the witnesses of therespondent indicate that there are number of premises owned bythe petitioner and one such premises is a building near Nehrustatue of Nandurbar city. It comprises of four godowuns. Thereare twelve to thirteen tenants in the said building. Thepleadings and the cross examination of the petitioner’s witnessunequivocally disclose availability of the premises with thepetitioner. 9 cra 62.2319.I have gone through the deposition of the petitioner’switness, who is the manager. There are number of candidadmissions. It is not disputed that he is in know how ofadministration and assets of the petitioner society. Followingadmissions are very crucial :(i)The premises of building owned by the petitioner is 7000 to8000 square feet, in which twelve to thirteen tenants arehousing.(ii)Four godowuns are in the building.(iii)Previously State Bank was the tenant, which vacated thepremises and the same has been let out to other tenants onhigher rent.(iv)Petitioner filed suits for eviction against eight to tentenants, out of that in two cases decree for eviction was passed bycompromise.(v)Possession was given by one of the tenants namelyAssistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, which is comprisingof 1800 square feet.(vi)Tenant Prabhakar Jondhale handed over possession of fiverooms in compromise and some rooms were further let out toother tenants.(vii)Petitioner secured possession of it’s tenanted premisesciting present suit for eviction filed by the respondent.(viii)Respondent is having a big family and agricultural landsare not sufficient to satisfy their needs.(ix)The premises is required for medical shop or computer 10 cra 62.23business.20.Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated admissionsreferred above in deciding issue of bona fide requirement andhardship in favour of the respondent. I do not find anyperversity or patent illegality in those findings. The witnesscannot be discarded just because he is admitting the requirementof the members of respondent’s family. The respondent hasindependently led evidence. The admissions given by thepetitioner’s witness corroborated case of the respondent. Thesubmission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unduereliance is placed on his evidence is also liable to be rejected.21.Petitioner placed reliance on following judgments ofSupreme Court and this High Court :A.Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal reported in AIR 1974 SC 1596. I haveconsidered paragraph No. 12. It is laid down that the test to beapplied by the Court is an objective test and not subjective onewhile examining bona fide requirement. Mere assertion wouldnot be sufficient to prove that requirement is bona fide. Meredesire is not sufficient. I have followed the same principles andrecorded in the present matter that it is not a mere desire of therespondent. The evidence on record shows element of need andgenuineness in starting new business. Respondent hasdischarged the burden in that regard. This judgment will nothelp the petitioner. 11 cra 62.23B.Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and another Vs. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar andothers reported in 2024 SAR (Civ) 275. I have gone through para No.11. Bona fide requirement as contemplated by Sec. 16(1)(g) of theAct is separate from requirement U/Sec. 16(1)(h) of the Act. Ihave already clarified that though it is tried to be contended byone of the witnesses of the respondent that premises is requiredfor demolishing old structure and erecting new building, the saidplea is liable to be rejected because the ground for eviction, whichis pressed into service is U/Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act. Thisjudgment will not help the petitioner.C.Vasant Mahadeo Gujar Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and another reportedin (2015) 5 Bom CR 243. I have considered para Nos. 54, 57, 58, 60,63 and 64 of the judgment. It is distinguishable on facts. I havealready recorded that in the case at hand not only respondent –landlord has led adequate evidence to make out a case U/Sec.16(1)(g) of the Act, but the witness of the petitioner has givenmaterial admissions to corroborate respondent’s case. Thisjudgment is of no avail to the petitioner.D.Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar (M/s) Parbhani Vs. Sulochanabai W/oGangadharrao Wattamwar reported in 2022(4) Mh.L.J. 41. I haveconsidered para Nos. 17, 20 to 26 of the judgment. The facts aredistinguishable. In the present case adequate evidence is led tomake out a case of bona fide requirement which is not merefanciful wish or dishonest desire. This judgment is not useful tothe petitioner. 12 cra 62.23E.Sushiladevi and others Vs. Avinash Chandra Jain and others reported in(1987) 2 SCC 219. I have gone through para No. 3 of the judgment.After examining record and the impugned judgments, I havecome to the conclusion that the impugned decisions are inaccordance with settled principles of law. There is no perversityor error of jurisdiction.22.Respondent relied on following judgments of the SupremeCourt and this High Court :a.Kanahaiya Lal Arya Vs. Md. Ehshan and others reported in 2025 SAR(Civ) 418. I have gone through the judgment. Propositions laiddown in para Nos. 10 to 12 are not disputed. It is reiterated thatlandlord is best judge to decide and select the property requiredto satisfy his need. I have concurred with the findings recordedby the Courts below by following the judgment.b.Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and another reported in 2003(2) All MR1140 (S.C.). I have gone through para Nos. 8, 9 and 11 of thejudgment, which explains the purport of word ‘himself’ occurringin Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act. Following the same principle, I haverecorded that requirement of grandson and nephews is squarelycovered by Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act.c.Maganlal Kishanlal Godha Vs. Nanasaheb Udhaorao Gadewar reportedin 2008 (3) B C J 554 (SC). I have considered para Nos. 15 to 18 ofthe judgment. It is rightly contended by the respondent that thetenant cannot dictate that already southern side portion is
Decision
13 cra 62.23available for the respondent to accommodate business activitiesof the family members. It is the privilege of the respondent –landlord. The ratio is applicable to the present case.23.I am of the considered view that the respondent is entitledto receive possession. Decrees passed by both the Courts beloware sustainable. For the foregoing reasons, I find no substance inthe revision. The civil revision application is dismissed with cost. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/Sept. 25