LAWS(BOM)-2001-7-174

GAJANAN BHAURAO BHANDIWADEKAR Vs. PARVATIBAI SHANKAR DESHMUKH

Decided On July 13, 2001
Gajanan Bhaurao Bhandiwadekar Appellant
V/S
Parvatibai Shankar Deshmukh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the Order passed by the District Judge, Raigad dated June 21, 1990 in an Appeal No. 12 of 1989.

(2.) The Petitioners are the successors of the original Plaintiff-landlord. The landlord instituted suit against the Respondent-tenant in respect of premises bearing Survey No.623, House No. 21/5-B situated within the Pen Municipal limits admeasuring 11 ft x 5 ft. The said suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pen being Regular Civil Suit No.26 of 1983 for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement and default. Although the suit was originally filed on the aforesaid two grounds, but the parties proceeded before the Trial Court only with regard to the issue of bona fide and reasonable requirement. The trial Court after analysing the evidence on record took the view that the Petitioner had established the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises; as well as answered the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the Petitioner. Consequently, the suit for possession was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The Respondent-tenant, however, preferred appeal before the District Court being Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1989. The appellate Court on re appreciation the evidence on record was, however, pleased to reverse the finding recorded by the trial Court on both the issues of bona fide and reasonable requirement as well as issue of comparative hardship. In the circumstances, the Appeal was allowed and the suit for possession filed by the landlord was dismissed. This decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The Petitioner mainly argues that the findings recorded by the appellate Court are not just and proper. On analysing the Judgment of the appellate Court it would appear that the appellate Court has considered the issue of bona fide and reasonable requirement in the context of the fact that the landlord desires to come to Pen during his old age so as to spend the remaining life for the advancement of spiritual matters and also because of his health condition does not permit him to continue to stay at Pune. The appellate Court has closely examined both the aspects of the matter and has taken the view that the record would indicate that besides the suit premises the landlord has already secured possession of two other rooms adjacent to the suit premises though in dilapidated condition. According to the appellate Court since the landlord was already in possession of other premises coupled with the fact that he was in a position to repair the said rooms; and also because open land was available to him which was abutting the suit premises where he could construct new premises, if necessary. The issue of bona fide and reasonable requirement was therefore answered against the landlord. Even the Issue of comparative hardship has been answered against the landlord.