RADHABAI DOLATRAI DAVE Vs. PADMA KILAWALA MRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal by the tenants is directed against the decree for their eviction from a residential flat in Vile Parle, Bombay. The premises in question was taken on rent by one Dolatrai Dave, who died during the pendency of the present suit. The appellants are his heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiff-landlady was occupying another flat in the same building and according to her case she bona fide required additional space as her children grew up. She, therefore, initiated the present eviction proceeding and also pleaded that the tenant's family had acquired another residential flat, a little bigger in size, in Andheri, Bombay and had shifted there. The suit was filed in 1966. The defendant denied the plaintiff's assertion in regard to bona fide requirement. With respect to the acquisition of Andheri flat it was stated that the same was acquired personally by Bharat Kumar, the present appellant No. 3 and since he was transferred from Bombay to Kota in the course of his service, the other members of the family occupied the same and paid the rent. Their further case, now put forward is that Bharat Kumar has since retired (in 1987) and has come back to Bombay and occupied the Andheri flat. It is submitted that the other members of the family have no place to live except the Vile Parle flat.

(2.) Besides the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord, two other provisions in the Bombay Rent Act are relevant in the present context. Under Section 13(1)(k) the landlord is entitled to claim eviction of the tenant who ceases to occupy the premises in question for a period of six months immediately preceding the suit. Under S. 13(1)(1) eviction can be claimed on the ground of the tenant acquiring another suitable residential accommodation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the appeal by the landlord respondent was allowed and a decree for eviction was passed in her favour. The High Court has refused to interfere with the findings and judgment of the appellate Court.

(3.) So far the question of bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlady is concerned, the same has been finally decided against her. The decree by the appellate Court is based on the ground mentioned in S. 13(1)(1). The High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine.