MEENALEKNATHKSHIRSAGAR Vs. TRADERS AND AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3600 of 1990. The appellant had filed that writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court whereby the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, was reversed and the appellants suit was dismissed.

(3.) The appellant is an owner of a flat and a garage in the building known as Tarangini in Bombay. This suit premises belonged to her father and were gifted to her in 1972. By an agreement dated 29-3-1972, the said premises were given by the appellant to Respondent No. 1- firm on leave and licence basis for the purpose of its use and occupation by Respondent No. 2 who is a partner of that firm. She filed Suit No. R.A.E. 372/1276/83 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay seeking eviction of the respondents on the ground that she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for her personal occupation. In the plaint she stated that she and her husband do not have any other residential premises of their own in Bombay. Her husband is a paid Assistant in M/s. A. F. Ferguson and Co. a firm of Chartered Accountants. That firm has taken on lease one flat in a building named Park View. It had then given the same to one of its partners Mr. Kalra for his occupation. As Mr. Kalra was transferred from Bombay to Delhi, the flat had become available temporarily and therefore it was allowed to be used by the appellants husband purely on a temporary caretaker basis. As the said partner is likely to return to Bombay her husband will be required to vacate that flat and, therefore, they will be without any accommodation whatever in Bombay. She further stated that she had called upon the respondents to vacate the suit premises in 1974, and in response to one of her letters the respondents had in 1976, and again in 1978, assured the appellant that they would vacate the suit premises as soon as the flat booked by Respondent No. 2 in a building called Rambha would become ready for occupation. Even though the said flat has became available to Respondent No.2 he is not vacating the suit premises. She also stated that it is not possible for her to acquire any other premises in Bombay and, therefore, if a decree for possession is not passed she will suffer greater hardship. The suit was opposed on the ground that possession of the premises then in occupation of her husband was not insecure or temporary and that the suit premises are really not required by the appellant reasonably and bona fide for her occupation.