LAXMAN SHRIPATI YADAV Vs. DHIRAJRAI NANABHAI KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for decision of this Court in this petition is of a somewhat ticklish character. It relates really to the interpretation of section 13(1)(g) read with section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter, the Rent Act). The said two provisions aim at striking a balance between the respective rights of a landlord and a tenant. The question that arises in this petition is as to what weight is to be accorded to the fact that the plaintiff, who bona fide requires the possession of the rented premises, is the owner of the same. In other words, the question is what is the degree of the social constraint envisaged by section 13(2) of the Rent Act upon the right of the title paramount in connection with the possession of the hereditament.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :---

(3.) By the time when the petition came up for final hearing, the question as regards the requirement of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 had been finally decided by the Supreme Court in (T. Dharmapals case) A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1745. The question regarding validity of the said notice has, by virtue of the said decision, been rendered wholly irrelevant. Likewise the view of the lower Court regarding non-maintainability of the suit on account of non-joinder of parties has lost ground in view of the two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2335 (Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath & others) and A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1599 ( Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak) In view of this position, Mr. Dalvi, the learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that it would be really for the respondent to justify the decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge. He contended that in view of the unequivocal finding regarding the bona fide requirement and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners, the decree for eviction of the respondent must inevitably follow. Miss Anklesaria for the respondent has countenanced this contention with great competence. The ticklish question posed at the outset is the one that falls for the determination of this Court by virtue of the rival contentions of the two Counsel a reference to which will be made presently.