S.S. BENDRE Vs. SOU SULABHABAI MORESHWAR GHUMARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the original defendant tenant against the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff landlady filed Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat, against the petitioner-tenant for possession of the premises let out to the defendant tenant. The plaintiff averred that she is the owner of house No. 389 and the defendant is a tenant in respect of tenement consisting of two rooms and a veranda on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The plaintiff averred that she required the suit premises for her bonafide personal occupation as the premises in her occupation are not sufficient. She is in possession of two rooms but she has grown-up daughters and school going children. She specifically averred that the suit premises are not sufficient for her family and her school going children cannot study in the insufficient space. It was further averred that the brother of her husband was a goldsmith. He lost his business and, thereafter he shifted his family to Gaurkamath where unfortunately he died. The plaintiff further averred that the plaintiff's said brother-in-law had no source of income and it is the husband of the plaintiff who was maintaining the family of the brother. It was further averred that the plaintiff intends to bring the widow of the brother of her husband and she requires the possession of the suit premises also to accommodate the family of the brother of her husband.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, after recording the evidence, held that the plaintiff has proved that the suit premises in possession of the defendant are reasonably and bonafide required by her for her personal occupation. He also held that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if a decree is refused. The learned trial Judge held that the requirement is for the family of the plaintiff, including her husband, five daughters and one son as also for the purpose of accommodating Vijaya. On the issue of hardship, the learned Judge observed that the defendant in his cross-examination has admitted the three new buildings were constructed in the locality and there are 12 to 14 blocks vacant in the building of Dalvi. The learned Judge referred to the admission by the defendant to the effect that one Gaykar leased out his building three years back and that his friend constructed two blocks and leased them out. The learned Judge observed that the statement of the defendant falsifies the version in the examination-in-chief that there is scarcity of accommodation and he would put to great hardship if decree for eviction is passed against him. The learned Judge on the very same issue further observed that the evidence of the plaintiff shows that for every month, the plaintiff's husband has to spare about Rs. 200/- and send to the plaintiff's sister-in-law. The plaintiff's family and the family of the plaintiff's sister-in-law intend to stay together for convenience. The two families is given to the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned Judge formed the opinion that greater hardship lies with the plaintiff than to the defendant. Accordingly, by his judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1979, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Karjat, decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs.