RANCHHODLAL NARANDAS Vs. NATVERLAL CHUNILAL KHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguing the question of greater hardship which is required to be considered under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947) which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act Mr. M. D. Pandya learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-defendant has contended and with substance that the learned Judges have not properly applied their mind to the considerations required to be taken into account by the (Court under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 13 of the Act before a decree of eviction is passed. Now on this question it appears from the discussion of the point by the learned judges in para 8 of the judgment that the learned Judges have first considered the question as to whether the accommodation was available to the defendant-tenant as an industrial worker from the Gujarat Housing Board. On this question the learned judges have found that there was nothing to show that any accommodation was immediately available to the tenant on the date of the decree. They have found that there was no evidence to show that the tenant would get accommodation from the Gujarat Housing Board at some future date. The learned Judges have then found that therefore hardship would certainly be caused to the tenant if a decree for eviction was passed against him. But the learned Judges have then proceeded to consider the case of the plaintiff that if the decree for eviction was refused the plaintiff with his growing family would be compelled to continue to occupy insufficient accommodation. The learned Judges have then considered that the hardship which was likely to be caused to the tenant could be mitigated by giving him time to vacate the suit premises. On this reasoning the learned Judges accepted with approval the approach to the case by the learned trial Judge who had given 2 1/2 years time to the tenant to vacate the suit premises. Thus it was on this latter consideration viz. that time would resolve the question of hardship and would mitigate the hardship that the learned Judges have found that the balance of hardship was in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) NOW sub-sec. (2) of sec. 13 of the Act provides:-