BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADA Vs. GOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for eviction in a landlord-tenant litigation upholding availability of ground for eviction u/S. 13(1)(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 S. 13(2) of the Act is under challenge in this appeal by special leave filed by the appellant-landlord.

(2.) 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 wings 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 his 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 appellants family consists of the appellant and his wife and four married sons, i.e. five couples who live as a joint family. They have nine grandchildren, 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 grounds 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 is 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 greater 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 a decree for eviction being passed from the residential portion of the tenancy premises, i.e. the first and second floors but denied the eviction so far as the nonresidential part of the tenancy premises, i.e. the ground floor is concerned.

(3.) 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 decree of the Appellate court. So far as the decree for eviction from the residential part of the premises is concerned, the same has achieved finality in view of the tenant -respondent having not appealed there against. The landlord has persisted in his claim for eviction from non-residential part of the tenancy premises. This appeal by special leave is, therefore, confined to the issue whether the decree for eviction should have been passed against the tenant -respondent from the non-residential part of the tenancy premises. i.e. the ground floor also.