M M BILANEY Vs. FALI RUSTOMJI KUMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in WP No. 1247 of 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under.

(3.) On 16.7.1987 the respondent amended the written statement and by that amendment he averred that he has been occupying the suit premises in his own right as a tenant of the appellants or a deemed tenant under the 1973 amendment to the Act. It was also pointed out that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent and he has been continuously paying the rent to the appellants and the same has been accepted by the appellants. Then another amendment was made by the respondent in 1990 to the written statement and it was contended that he was the only child to the original defendant No. 1 - his father, Rustom D. Kumar. The issues were framed in the suit. On 30.9.1994 the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants. The trial court held that the respondent had failed to prove his tenancy right and as such he was a mere trespasser. Therefore, there was no need to render any finding on other issues. It was also held that the appellants have proved their bona fide requirement. It was further held that greater hardship would be caused to the appellants if the decree of eviction was not passed.