YESHWANT KRISHNA SONAR Vs. ANNAJI BALWANTRAO BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the tenant who took the open land on the monthly basis and there he has erected as the Courts below have found, a temporary structure, seeks to challenge the decree made by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal under section 13 (1) (i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act"). After hearing the evidence, the Courts bslow have found that the need of the plaintiff to have the land reasonably and bono fide for erection of a new building is well justified.

(2.) These concurrent orders making the decree are questioned by the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Kotwa!, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, strenuously argued that the reasoning of the Courts below with regard to the reasonable and bana fide requirement is vitiated because the plaintiff was having several premises and he was trying to choose the open space on the ground of convenience and mere convenience was not equivalent to reasonable and bona fide requirement. He relied on the aspect that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and that he was having other open lands, including the agricultural fields, and other structures. He stated that the present land in the occupation of the tenant was being needed for the purpose of constructing premises so as to have accommodation for tethering of the cattle, keeping of the agricultural implements, storing of agricultural produce such as grass etc. Looking to the establishment of the plaintiff himself and the nearness of the open site which is just 60' to 70' from the residential premises of the plaintiff, the Courts below have found that his claim to have this land for the purpose of having a new building is well- established. There is also on record the permission to so build from the Gram Panchayat as per Ex. 79. It was also not in dispute that the plaintiff was in a position to erect a new building. These factors, in the submission of the learned counsel, merely showed a preference for the site and not a genuine or reasonable need. Secondly, it was contended that in view of the provisions of section 25 (1) of the Act, an open land being in the possession of the tenant for the residential purpose cannot be granted for the purpose which is non-residential, in other words for the purpose of keeping the cattle and other agricultural uses. In the submission of the learned counsel, this will be a change of user from residential to non-residential. Reliance is placed on the Single Judge's judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Application "No. 2172 of 1957 decided on September 3, 1959 (by Tarkunde, J.) for the proposition that while the landlord seeks a decree under section 13 (1) (g) of the Act, the prohibition imposed by section 25 ( ) of the Act is a relevant factor to find out whether such a decree could be made.