DWARKAPRASAD Vs. NIRANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant at owner landlord of Premises No. 79, Main Road, Nasik, instituted an eviction suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, for a decree of eviction against the respondents herein regarding the suit premises comprising ground floor and first floor of house bearing Municipal No. 79, Main Road, Nasik. According to the averments in the plaint, a portion of the suit property was given on lease vide Lease Deed dated 16-10-1971 to the defendants. The ground floor and first floor of the property along with some open space formed part of the lease in favour of defendants. The defendants had given an advance of Rs. 15,000/- to the plaintiff. The advance amount was to be adjusted out of the monthly lease charges to the extent of 50%. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 351/-. Thus, the defendants were liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 175.50 each month and the remaining half, that is, Rs. 175.50 per month was adjusted towards the advance of Rs. 15,000/-. The eviction suit was instituted mainly on two grounds, that is, default in payment of rent and bona fide need of the plaintiff for use of the demised premises by himself and members of his family. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff constitutes a joint Hindu family comprising his widowed mother, brothers and sisters. The plaintiff required accommodation for the purpose of setting up new business in order to settle his younger brothers. The plaintiff also required the suit premises for settling his son in business. The plaintiff did not have any other premises in Nasik which could be utilized for the said requirement of the plaintiff. It was averred that plaintiffs two younger brothers were not having any independent business. They were only attending to the restaurant business carried on by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff so many members of the family in one business were neither required nor it was profitable and advisable to have all the family members in one business. The younger brothers were competent enough to set up their own independent business and for that purpose the suit premises was most suitable.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1994. The respondent-tenant filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Court of the District Judge, Nasik. The same was disposed of by IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik, vide his judgment dated 30th August, 1997. The lower appellate Court rejected the ground regarding default in payment of rent but maintained the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court on the second ground, that is personal bona fide need of the plaintiff-landlord regarding the suit premises. The tenant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay. By the impugned judgment the High Court partly affirmed the eviction decree. The personal bona fide need of the landlord qua the requirement of half portion of demised premises for setting up business of his son was accepted while the need for setting up of business by the brothers of the landlord in the other half portion was rejected on the ground that requirement of brothers could not be considered specially when they did not have any proprietary interest in the property. This resulted in the landlord being granted eviction decree only with respect to 50% of the demised premises. The premises was split into two equal portions as per the decree of the High Court - one portion goes to the landlord by virtue of the eviction decree while the other portion remains with the tenant. The landlord has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant confined her argument to the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the entire suit premises. The other ground regarding default in payment of rent is not required to be considered. The case regarding bona fide requirement of members of family of the appellant-landlord is based on requirement of his son and two younger brothers. The relevant provision is contained in sub-section (1)(g) of Section 13 of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said section is reproduced as under: