VASUDEO RAGHUNATH KULKARNI Vs. YASHODABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction has been passed concurrently by both the courts below on identical grounds.

(2.) The facts, though very few, are quite a tell-tale character. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter as the landlord and tenant

(3.) It is in the context of these admitted fact or facts found on record that the trial Court held that the defendant-tenant was liable for eviction having regard to the provisions of section 13(1)(i) of the Rent Act. The trial Court also found no reason to reject the evidence led by the plaintiff showing that the plaintiff had the first floor admeasuring 778 sq. ft. of area in his possession was extremely inadequate for his grown up and growing family. The Court, therefore, found that the plaintiff had established the bona fide character of his requirement vis-a-vis the suit premises. Further, having regard to the fact that the defendant-tenant had acquired the said flat in the co-operative society, the learned Judge also held that the question of balance of convenience had got to be decided in favour of the plaintiff-landlord. The plaintiffs suit for eviction was, therefore, decreed by the trial Court.