G LALCHAND Vs. BIDAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord of the premises which was occupied by one R. Premraj. The premises consist of residential and non-residential portions. It was purchased by the petitioner somewhere in 1956. The eviction of the tenant was sought both on the grounds of arrears of rent and also on bonafide and reasonable requirements. Since the tenant deposited all the arrears of rent, that ground was given up. The case proceeded solely on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his reasonable and bonafide requirements. The trial Court accepted the case of the landlord and ordered the eviction. Before the appeal wag filed, the original tenant died. His wife and children filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court.

(2.) The learned District Judge has stated that the landlord has not proved that the premises are reasonably and bonafide required by him. On the question of comparative hardship also he has held against the landlord.

(3.) Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the landlord, strenuously contended that the appellate Court has not properly considered the evidence on record. His next submission was that after the death of the original tenant, his wife and children have no right of protection since the tenant died after the determination of the tenancy. 1 will take up the second contention first. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision in S.P.Hamidsha v. Seshagiri, (1973) 1 Mys.L.J. 127. In the said decision, it is laid down that-