AVINASH GOPALRAO VADGAONKAR Vs. RAMESCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA JHAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present civil revision application has been filed against the judgment and order of the Ad-hoc District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No.49 of 2007. By this judgment, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Solapur in R.C. Suit No.765 of 2004 and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE applicant is the landlord of the suit premises consisting of a shop and one room. The respondent was the tenant in the premises since 1958. On his retirement from a bank in which he was employed, the applicant sought to recover possession of the suit premises. He terminated the tenancy on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises for himself and his family. As the respondent did not vacate the suit premises, the applicant filed the aforesaid suit. He contended that he required the suit premises as he intended to run a grocery and general provision store in the suit premises. The applicant also pleaded that his son was a major and not employed. He further pleaded that the suit premises were required by him as he had no other alternate employment after retirement from the bank. The applicant further pleaded that the defendant i.e. the respondent herein, was financially sound and that he had alternate premises near the suit premises which were sufficient for him to run his business. The applicant further pleaded that, if a decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the applicant was not passed, great hardship would be caused to him.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Court. The Appellate Court/District Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court by concluding that the need of the applicant for the suit premises was neither reasonable nor bonafide. The Appellate Court further observed that the respondent had not searched for an alternate accommodation and that from the evidence it was established that the respondent had sufficient premises in his possession for the business. The Appellate Court, therefore, concluded that greater hardship would be caused to the applicant if the decree for eviction was not passed. However, the Appellate Court set aside the decree only on the ground that there was no pleading and evidence to support the case of the plaintiff that he was in urgent need of the suit premises. It was further observed that the plaintiff had not given any reasons for his requirement of the suit premises and that the element of necessity was "conspicuously absent in the plaint". The Appellate Court further observed that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the applicant intended to start a business or that the income of the applicant, in fact, was insufficient to support his family and himself. The Appellate Court observed that it was only because the plaintiff had retired from service that he had sought the suit premises. Based on certain judgments of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court observed that the mere desire of the applicant to get possession of the suit premises was not sufficient. The Court further noted that the applicant's son had obtained an admission in a medical college and, therefore, the question of his requirement for the suit premises for running a business was not established.