RAGHUNATH G PANHALE Vs. CHAGANLAL SUNDARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This is an appeal by the landlords for possession of a non-residential premises from the respondent-tenant. The Suit No. 37 of 1986 was filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel by the original landlord for his own use pleading bona fide and reasonable requirement. The respondent-tenant resisted the suit contending that the plea of bona fide requirement was not acceptable. During the pendency of the case in the first Court, the original plaintiff died and his heirs, the appellants were brought on record. They filed an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was allowed. The third legal representative pleaded that the same premises was required for himself for starting a grocery business. He stated that he was working in Metal Box Co., that there was a lock-out in that company, that he was finding it difficult to maintain the family and wanted to improve his livelihood by starting grocery business. On the amended pleadings, both parties led evidence. The trial Court held that on the death of the original landlord, the suit abated because the original landlord's requirement was for himself and his requirement differed from that of his heirs. On merits, the trial Court held that there was no proof of lock-out, no proof of capital available for investment, no proof of preparations for business and that the appellant had no experience in grocery business. The lock-out did not put the appellant out of his job permanently. The appellant had not resigned his job. Therefore, the requirement was not bona fide. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court confirmed the finding on the question of bona fide requirement but reversed the finding as to abatement stating that the plaint was amended, and thereafter parties had adduced evidence on the question of the need of the legal representatives. The appellate Court gave a finding that the tenant had got three other shops. The appeal was dismissed. The landllord has come up in appeal.

(3.) We have heard elaborate arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides. After hearing counsel, we are of the view, for reasons given below, that this is a fit case for interference under Article 136 inasmuch as the Courts were wrong in thinking that the plaintiff must prove not his need but his 'dire or absolute necessity'. The above approach on the facts has appeared to us to be based on irrelevant circumstances.