SHRIRANG DHARAMRAJ KALE Vs. NAJMUNISSA A RAHIMBEE SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions under Article 227 take exception to the judgment and decree dated 3-4-1989 of the 5th Additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1987. The premises in question consists of on verandah and two rooms admeasuring 10 x 10 and 15 x 12 which forms portion of C. T. S. No. 6995, house No. 96 at Siddheshwar Peth, Solapur. The suit structure consists of total 14 rooms out of which the suit premises referred to above were in possession of tenant Shrirang Dharamraj Kale. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3917/89 and respondents in the companion Writ Petition No. 3439 of 1990 are the successors of the said tenant. (hereinafter referred to as tenant ). The said tenant was inducted in the suit premises by the predecessor of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3917/89 and petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3439/90 (hereinafter referred to as the landlord ).

(2.) THE respondents instituted suit for possession of the suit premises against the tenant before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur being Regular Civil Suit No. 1123/80, essentially on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement under section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and tenant having acquired alternative suitable residence under section 13 (1) (l) of the Act. The trial Court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the landlords on both the aforesaid grounds. In the circumstances, tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Court being Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1987. The Appellate Court however, by the impugned judgment and decree was pleased to confirm the decree for possession only on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement but reversed the finding and conclusion of the trial Court in so far as the ground of tenant having secured alternate premises under section 13 (1) (l) of the Act. In the circumstances, the tenant has filed Writ Petition No. 3917 of 1989 challenging the finding and conclusion with regard to the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, whereas the landlords have filed Writ Petition No. 3439 of 1990 challenging the finding and conclusion recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to the ground of tenant having secured alternative residential accommodation. Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the self same judgment and decree and have been heard and decided together.

(3.) MR. Kumbhakoni appearing for the tenants contends that the finding and conclusion recorded by the Appellate Court on the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement is manifestly wrong and perverse since the Appellate Court even after adverting to the fact that the landlords had inducted one Narkhedkar in the suit structure and parted possession of two rooms therein in his favour just before the institution of the suit, could not have returned finding that the landlords have established reasonable and bona fide requirement as such. He contends that this will have to be examined in the context of the fact that the landlords had filed earlier suit for the same ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement and that issue was answered against the landlords by the trial Court. The learned Counsel contends that undoubtedly, the earlier suit was decreed in favour of the landlords on the ground that the tenant has secured alternative premises but even that decree was reversed by the Appellate Court on 20-4-1978. It is around that time that the landlords have inducted said Shri Narkhedkar in the two rooms out of 11 rooms in their occupation at the relevant time. It is contended that since the said Narkhedkar was inducted just before the institution of the suit, it is incomprehensible as to how the Court would accept the plea that the landlords have established reasonable and bona fide requirement. It is further contended that in any case, admittedly, the landlords have obtained possession of the said two rooms from said Narkhedkar during the pendency of the present suit and if that be so, the requirement of the landlords will have to be held to have been eclipsed by that event. In such a case also, no decree on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement could be passed in favour of the landlords. He has also criticized the conclusion and findings recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to the issue of comparative hardship being inappropriate.