High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
929.CRA-21-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2025Suganmal Sindhumal SindhiDeceased, through his LRs-Ishwari Suganmal Sindhi-Deceased, through his Legal Heirs>1)Ashokkumar Suganmal Sindhi,Age : 53 years, Occu: Business,2)Rajendrakumar Suganmal Sindhi,Age : 51 years, Occu: Business,3)Kanhaiyalal Suganmal Sindhi,Age : 48 years, Occu: Business.Applicant No. 1 to 3 R/o Plot No.R-5,Room No.1, Opposite Central Bank,Kumarnagar, Sakri Road, Dhule,District Dhule.4)Indirabai Vinodkumar Sindhi,Age : 56 years, Occ: Household;R/o C/o Pooja Dresses,Prop. Vinodkumar Sindhi,Outside Railway Station, Hotel Punjab,Ch. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad).District Ch. Sambhajinagar... Applicants VersusMustafa Abbasbhai Bohari,Age : 54 years, Occu.: Business,R/o: Burhani Shopping Complex,Datta Mandir Chowk, Deopur,Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondent*****[1] 929.CRA-21-2025.odt* Mr. Rajendraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocatealongwith Mr. Vikhyati Jain i/by Mr. Devang R. DeshmukhAdvocate for the Applicants.* Mr. Subodh P. ShahAdvocate for the Respondent.***** CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. Date On Which Arguments were heard : 26th June 2025 Date On Which Judgment is Pronounced : 3rd July 2025 J U D G M E N T :.Heard both sides.2.Applicant – Tenant is assailing judgment and decree ofeviction passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil SuitNo.199/2015 which is confirmed by Lower Appellate Court inRegular Civil Appeal No.80/2023 on 14.08.2024. Respondent hadfiled suit for eviction under the provisions of Maharashtra RentControl Act (Hereinafter referred to as Act for the sake of brevityand convenience) on the ground of default, bonafide requirementand hardship. 3.The subject matter is a shop measuring 12 x 50 sqr. mtrs.which is part and parcel of City Survey No.1452 situated at LaneNo.2 of Dhule City. It was let out by erstwhile owner Mr. Yashwantto Applicant – deceased Suganmal Sindhi for running a shop in thename and style – Shree Glass House. Respondent purchased City[2] 929.CRA-21-2025.odtSurvey No.1452 including the suit property on 07.06.1997. It ispleaded by the Respondent that suit property had becomedilapidated and notice was also received from Municipal Councilfor demolishing the property. 4.It’s a case of Respondent that Applicant did not pay rentfrom 01.01.1997. The possession was required for demolishing theproperty. The relations between the parties were strained.Respondent wanted the suit property for his business and forcarrying out construction of new building for grocery shop/supershop. It is further contended that premises in Burhani Complexwhich was at Deopur is not convenient as his brother was alreadyrunning business therein. His elder son Murtuza also needed thepremises for running business. The location of the suit property iscentrally placed. 5.It is further contended that Applicant does not require thepremises. He has City Survey Nos. 1440, 1443 and 1453 to run thebusiness. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated20.02.2015. Thereafter suit was filed. 6.Applicant contested the suit on the ground that he runsbusiness in the suit property which is in structurally goodcondition. The rent from 01.01.1997 was deposited in the Court upto 2014 and further rent was sent by demand draft. It is contendedthat City Survey No.1453 belongs to Barkha Rajesh and CitySurvey No.1440 is not in his possession. The need shown by thelandlord is false and considering availability of suitable premisesat Burhani Complex and others, no case is made out. [3]
Legal Reasoning
929.CRA-21-2025.odt7.Both the parties adduced oral evidence and produceddocuments indicating availability of the premises as per rivalcontentions. Admittedly Applicant resorted to proceeding underSection 8 of the Act for fixation of the standard rent and permittedincreases. It was contested by the Respondent. Application wasallowed vide order dated 30.08.2011, fixing standard rent atRs.250/- payable from January, 1993 and with permittedincreases of 4%. 8.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendraa Deshmukh has placedon record a paper-book. He would submit that as per thedetermination of the standard rent, arrears have been depositedfrom 1997 till filing of the suit and there are no arrears. Afterfiling of the suit also there is punctual payment of rent in the trialCourt and thereafter in the Appellate Court. Hence it is contendedthat finding regarding default is perverse. It is further contendedthat both the Courts below overlooked that there is a payment ofRs.260/- per month considering the permitted increases andfinding of arrears of Rs.52,500/- is perverse. It is furthersubmitted that Respondent is very rich person and is alreadyrunning his business at different places in and around Dhule City.The need is absolutely false and open premises adjourning suitproperty bearing CTS No.1452 is already in possession which hasnot been constructed by him. It is further contended that thefinding that commercial properties at CTS No.1453/3, 1453/1 and1440 are in possession of the Applicant is patently illegal. 9.Learned Senior Counsel would advert my attention to[4] 929.CRA-21-2025.odtadmissions secured in the cross-examination of Defendant No.1i.e. Respondent as well as Defendant No.2. It is submitted thatissue of greater hardship has been incorrectly decided by both theCourts below. The properties available to the Respondent have notbeen taken into account. The goodwill created at the suit propertyhas been overlooked. 10.Per contra, Mr. Subodh Shah learned Counsel for theRespondent would support both the judgments. He would submitthat Applicant never paid 4% of the annual increases which wasdirected to be paid from January 1993. Payment of Rs.260/- permonth for some period cannot be the compliance of order dated30.08.2011. It is vehemently contended that no evidence wasplaced on record neither in the trial Court, nor in Appellate Courtregarding payment of arrears of rent from 01.01.1997 till June2015. It is submitted that there is considerable distance betweenthe suit property and Burhani Complex in which Respondent’sbrother is running business. The issue of comparative hardshiphas been properly dealt with by both Courts below. It is furthercontended that already three premises are available for theApplicant to run the business and he could have acquired suitablepremises. It is further submitted that no interference is called forin the concurrent finding of facts. 11.Learned Counsel Mr. Shah relies on following judgments :(a)Smt. Sulochanabai Kashinath Gujar Vs. KrishnabaiDhantram Ugvekar and Others, 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 464.(b)Abdul Gani s/o Sheikh Hasam Vs. Dilip Gopaldas Duwani andAnother, 2022(5) Mh.L.J. 514)[5] 929.CRA-21-2025.odt(c)Krishna Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi (2014) 9 SCC 309(d)Ujwalabai @ Meena Shantaram Apte Vs. Namdeo Dnyanoba Shingare (2001(4) Mh.L.J. 545)12.I have considered rival submissions of the parties. Both theCourts below decreed the suit on the ground of default andbonafide requirement. As per order dated 30.08.2011 passed inMiscellaneous Civil Application No.53/2007, standard rent ofRs.250/- was fixed which was payable from January, 1993 with arider of annual increases of 4%. Respondent filed suit on21.07.2015, claiming arrears from 01.01.1997 till filing of the suitto the tune of Rs.52,500/-. 13.The landlord is entitled to claim possession on the ground ofdefault of rent and the permitted increases as per Section 15 of theAct. The ground of default is applicable for rent as well aspermitted increases. Applicant was under obligation to pay rent ofRs.250/- per month from January, 1993 and from January, 1994,monthly rent in addition to 4% increases. Likewise the demand ofthe Respondent for arrears was from 01.01.1997. The amount ofrent with permitted increases payable from 01.01.1997 wasdefinitely more than Rs.260/- per month. There is nothing onrecord that Applicant paid such arrears. No receipt or any tangibledocument is produced on record and proved by the Applicant toindicate payment of arrears. At-least in the Lower AppellateCourt, Applicant could have resorted to Order 41 Rule 27 of CPCfor producing the documentary evidence to show the payment.Only few photo copies of the receipts were shown which wereneither produced before the trial Court, nor exhibited. That cannot[6] 929.CRA-21-2025.odtbe said to be compliance of payment of arrears of rent andpermitted increases. 14.In this Court also, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendraa S.Deshmukh has tendered across bar photocopies of few receiptsand applications with orders indicating payment @ Rs.260/- permonth. But these documents do not show payment from January,1997 to June 2015. There is absolutely no evidence on record forpayment of arrears of rent and permitted increases. Both theCourts below have rightly held that Respondent is entitled todecree of eviction on the ground of default. 15.Just because the Respondent-landlord is having immovableproperties at various places and even open premises forconstruction, cannot be a ground to castigate his bonafides.Landlord is the best judge of his need. Neither Court, nor tenantcan impose that landlord should have conducted business in aparticular premises only. Respondent is expanding his businessand requiring premises for the business of his son. He comes upwith a theory that part of CTS No.1452 has become dilapidatedand part of it is open. He is desirous of constructing a building atthat place to accommodate need of his family to run business.16.It has come on record that Burhani shopping Complex atDeopur is at about 3.5 kilo meter from the suit premises. At thatplace, his brother is running business. The licence of super shoppeis in the name of his brother. No convincing material is on recordthat Respondent is allotted any part part in the Complex and hecan run business. Besides that, it has come on record that[7] 929.CRA-21-2025.odtRespondent and his five brothers are not in good terms. Those fivebrothers are looking after the Complex. The clarification given bythe Respondent in paragraph no.63 of his cross-examinationwould be sufficient to infer that there is no premises at BurhaniComplex to run business and even if it is assumed that somepremises is available, it is not possible for the Respondent tocommence any business at that place. 17.There is nothing on record to show that the business of thefamily behind Raj Kamal Talkies can be said to be suitable andavailable premises for the Respondent. No material is placed onrecord to show that it was exclusively owned by Respondent andin his possession. Although attempts are made by the Applicant toshow that in the vicinity, premises are available for theRespondent to run business, there is no concrete material onrecord to show that the premises are suitable and would satisfythe need of Respondent. It is trite law that Landlord is the bestjudge of his need. I find that both the Courts below have rightlyconsidered oral and the documentary evidence to conclude thatthere is a bonafide requirement. The submission of learned SeniorCounsel has no merit. 18.Both the Courts below have considered the comparativehardship. It has come on record that a plot in CTS No.1453/3 waspurchased by Applicant which is larger in size than suit property.It is available for running business. It has come on record that thesaid plot is adjacent to the suit property. Their house constructedat Plot No.644 is also one of the factors considered by the Courtsbelow. [8] 929.CRA-21-2025.odt19.It has come on record that Applicant agreed to purchase aplot at CTS No.1440 and succeeded in Special Civil SuitNo.34/2013 for specific performance of contract. Thus the saidproperty is also available to the Applicant. I find that Applicant isof sound financial condition and suitable premises are availablewith them which are rightly noted in paragraph no.22 of thejudgment of Lower Appellate Court. Both the Courts below haverightly dealt with the issue of comparative hardship. LearnedSenior Counsel has referred to the cross-examination of the PW-1and PW-2, but he is unable to point out any material admission toshow that requirement of landlord is not bonafide. I find that nocase is made out by the Applicant to cause any interference in theimpugned judgment and order. 20.Respondent relies on the judgment in the matter of Smt.Sulochanabai Kashinath Gujar (supra) for the propositions thatHigh Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as well as it isprerogative of the landlord to decide about his requirement.Considering paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment, I find thatno case is made out by the Applicants to cause any interference inthe impugned judgment and decree. .Further reliance is placed on the matter of Ujwalabai @Meena Shantaram Apte (supra), my attention is adverted toparagraph no.5 to buttress the submission that tenant is obliged topay rent as well as permitted increases. Following the saidprinciples, I find that the case is made out by landlord for default. 21.Reliance is relied on the judgment in the matter of KrishnaKumar Rastogi (supra). I have gone through paragraph nos. 9 and[9]
Decision
929.CRA-21-2025.odt10 which inter-alia referred to judgment of High Court in thematter of Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155. Boththe Courts below have rightly considered the requirement of theRespondent-landlord in the wake of the principles laid down in thejudgment..Lastly reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter ofAbdul Gani s/o Sheikh Hasam (supra). In paragraph no.11 of thejudgment, learned Single Judge reiterated settled legal positionthat landlord is the best judge of his bonafide need and whenmultiple premises are available, it would be subjective exercise oflandlord. I find that in the case at hand Applicants failed toestablish that alleged alternate premises are suitable to satisfy theneed. 22.In the result, I find no merit in the Civil Revision Application.Civil Revision Application is dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. 23.Civil Application is disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] JUDGENAJEEB..[10]