GAJARABEN PRAKASHCHAND MEHTA Vs. RATILAL PHULCHAND MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the original plaintiff-landlady whose suit for recovery of possession of suit premises on the ground of her bona fide and reasonable personal requirements which was decreed by the trial Court has been dismissed by the Appellate Court. There were a few other questions raised by the plaintiff in the trial Court. But none of them is urged before me in this petition. The only question that falls for determination is as to whether the view taken by the learned Joint Judge in appeal holding that the plaintiffs requirement of the premises was not bona fide or reasonable is supportable or not.

(2.) The few relevant facts are as follows : The suit premises consist of Municipal House No. 363 at Baramati. It is a one storied building and the entire building is in possession of the respondent as a tenant and he is using the same as a godown. There was some controversy on the question as to whether the suit house was let out initially to the respondent for the purpose of residence and whether the controverted it subsequently for the use as godown. But it was common ground before be now that the contention of the respondent in that behalf was correct and the suit property was let out to the respondent right from its inception for the purpose of godown only. The suit house originally belonged to one Smt. Tarabai Hirematt who had let out the same to the father of the respondent about 35 years before the date of the suit. After his fathers death, the respondent became the tenant in respect of the same house and he continued to use the same as godown. The said house was purchased by the present petitioner on 18-2-1975. At the time when the house was purchased by the petitioner she was residing along with her family in the premises which consist just of two rooms; the bigger room admeasures 7 1/2 x 7 1/2 whereas the smaller room admeasures 3 x 4. The family of the petitioner consisted and continues to consist of her husband, her two major sons and an unmarried daughter. It has come on record, and there is no serious dispute about this fact, that the premises occupied by the petitioner at present have no water tap of their own. The premises are situated in a chawl consisting of 80 tenements and one common water tap and one common sanitary block exist for all those 80 tenements. There is evidence led by the petitioner describing immense hardship caused to her family by virtue of the absence of such elementary necessities in life. It was in these circumstances that the suit house was purchased by the petitioner so as to avail of a decent accommodation for her family and it was with this end in view that, according to the petitioner, she filed instant suit in the Court at Baramati for recovery of possession of the suit premise from the respondent inter alia, on the ground of her bona fide and reasonable personal requirements.

(3.) The suit was stoutly contested by the respondent. He denied that the petitioners need was either bona fide or reasonable. His contention further was that he had been using the premises as godown for his business and hence contended that greater hardship would be caused to him by a decree of eviction against him than would be caused by refusing any such decree in favour of the plaintiff. The case relating to the other question urged by the parties need not be referred to here at all because no argument has been advanced in that connection before me at the time of hearing of this petition.