PREMPRAKASH HUKUMATRAY SETHI Vs. VANDANA BHALCHANDRA ALTEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Pune dated November 24, 1987 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1986.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant is respect of House No. 24/3, Shivajinagar, Pune. The respondent-landlady filed suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement and also on the ground that petitioner having acquired alternative suitable accommodation. The trial Court negatived the ground of petitioner having acquired suitable accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, however, held that the respondent-landlady has established in evidence that the suit premises were required for the personal use and occupation of the respondent as well as her family members. However, while answering the issue of comparative hardship the trial Court in its order dated August 18, 1985 took the view that the petitioner-tenant would suffer greater hardship as he would be thrown on streets. In the circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the suit and rejected the relief of possession. Being dissatisfied by the said order the respondent- preferred appeal before the District Court challenging the finding of the trial Court with regard to the issue of comparative hardship. Neither from the judgment of the appellate Court, nor there is anything on record to indicate that, the petitioner had filed any cross-objection challenging the finding on the issue of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the respondent. In the circumstances the appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court on the said issue and held that the respondent-landlady would suffer comparative hardship. Accordingly, the appellate Court decreed the suit and directed the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlady. This order is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.