MAHADEO SHRINIWAS NAIK Vs. RATNANCHAND ANANDRAM DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for eviction filed in 1980 by the petitioner was decreed on two grounds by the Small Causes Judge, Pune. The learned trial Judge in his judgment dated 30-7-1987 held that the ground that the premises had been unlawfully sub-let was established and that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bona fide for himself and the members of his family. The judgment of the trial Court has been reversed in appeal by the additional District Judge, Pune, on 22-3-1990. The landlord is before this Court in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE premises in this case consist of a property bearing Municipal House no. 233-A, situate at Shivajinagar, Pune. The landlord had been conducting the business of a hotel in the suit premises which consist of a shop. Under a rent note dated 17-7-1970, the business of the hotel came to be transferred to the tenant together with the tenancy in respect of the premises. The petitioner instituted the suit for eviction in 1980 on several grounds, these being: (i) default in the payment of rent; (ii) non-user of the premises; (iii) unlawful sub-letting; and (iv) the bona fide requirement of the landlord. Evidence was adduced before the trial Court. The suit was decreed by the Small causes Judge on two counts, viz. , that the premises had been unlawfully sub-let by the original tenant and on the ground of the bona fide requirement of the landlord. Against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the landlord which came to be allowed by the Additional District judge, Pune.

(3.) INSOFAR as the ground of the bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned, in para 4 of the plaint, it was stated that the landlord required the premises for himself and for the members of his family meaning particularly, his sons. The landlord asserted that the premises were required for the purpose of his own business and that as a result of the inadequacy of space, it has not been possible for him to expand his business. In support of the case of the landlord, evidence was tendered of two of his sons, Prabhakar and Pravin. The learned trial Judge noted that one of the sons of the landlord had deposed that his brother carried on the business of the sale of bakery products in the adjoining premises. He produced a copy of the licence of the premises under the Shops Act. According to him, there were 16 members in the family and the premises in question were required for the purpose of the expansion of the business. The second son of the landlord, Pravin also deposed in support of the requirement. He stated that he was carrying on business from the adjoining premises from which he derived income of Rs. 100/- to Rs. 125/- each day. He stated that this income was not sufficient for the family and that he intended to expand his business. Considering the evidence of these two witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, the learned trial Judge held that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and for the family. Insofar as the question of comparative hardship was concerned, the learned trial Judge held that the aforesaid factor weighed in favour of the landlord. That was because the deceased tenant, defendant No. 1, had entered into a partnership and that partnership had evidently come to an end on the death of one partner. If a decree for possession was refused, the landlord's son who was a young man and wanted to expand his business will suffer considerable greater hardship than if a decree were to be passed.