SHANTARAM TUKARAM MOHITE Vs. DATTATRAYA GANGARAM TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India takes exception to the Order passed by the Additional district Judge, Sangli dated February 6, 1983 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 176 of 1987.

(2.) THE Respondent is the landlord in respect of the House in C. T. S. No. 993/b situated at Maruti Road, Sangli. The suit premises which form part of the said house was let out to the Petitioner by the Respondent somewhere in the year 1965. The present Petition arises out of the suit filed by the Respondent for recovery of possession of the suit premises and for arrears of rent and permitted increases before the III Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli being regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 1979. The Respondent-landlord prayed for eviction of the Petitioner-tenant on the ground that the suit premises are required for personal use and occupation as well as on the ground of default, unlawful subletting, damages caused to the suit property. The said suit was, however, partly allowed only with regard to the claim of recovery of arrears. In so far as the claim for possession of the suit premises same was negatived. In the circumstances, the Respondent-landlord preferred Appeal before the District Court being Regular Civil Appeal No. 176 of 1987. Only two grounds were pressed into service on behalf of the Respondent-landlord before the appellate Court. The first ground was of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for personal use and occupation and the second ground was for damages caused to the suit premises. The appellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record, negatived the second ground that the Petitioner had caused any damage to the suit premises so as to make him liable for eviction within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act. However, with regard to the first ground, namely, that the suit premises are required for reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord, the appellate Court accepted the version of the Respondent, but instead of granting decree of eviction for the entire premises the appellate Court restricted the decree only to the portion of the suit premises in other words, the appellate Court granted partial decree in respect of the suit premises described as "b" in the sketch produced alongwith Exh. 15. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Respondent was allowed to the above extent only. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge by way of present Writ Petition at the instance of the Petitioner-tenant.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly argues that, in view of the subsequent development that during the pendency of the proceedings the respondent has secured possession of some other premises from another tenant, the appellate Court was in error to return a finding in favour of the Respondent-landlord on the issue of bonafide and reasonable requirement. This is the only argument advanced so as to assail the finding recorded by the appellate Court with regard to the issue of bonafide and reasonable requirement. In so far as the finding recorded by the appellate Court, on the issue of partial eviction, the learned Counsel submits that, from the materials on record it would be seen that the requirement of the Respondent-landlord was only for 3 ft x 3 ft. premises which position he has accepted in evidence. He, therefore, submits that it was wholly unnecessary to order partial eviction especially when the Respondent-landlord has secured possession of almost equal area of the premises in the suit house from another tenant. In other words, the finding returned by the appellate court on the issue of bonafide and reasonable requirement are not seriously challenged except to the extent referred to above. The Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the Courts below have analysed the materials on record and has considered all the relevant factors while concluding that the Respondent has established bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises. In so far as the reasons recorded by the appellate court on the issue of comparative hardship the Learned Counsel has adopted the same to support the order passed by the appellate Court. He submits that, there is no infirmity in the approach or the reasoning recorded by the appellate court which would warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.