PRABHAKAR RAGHUNATH DIXIT Vs. B.S. KOTHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a landlord. Respondent No. 1 is his tenant. The subject matter in dispute between them is a block of four rooms in 'Parvati Sadan', 14th Road, Khar, Bombay -52. The petitioner filed a suit to recover possession under Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The said decree was set aside by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on the ground that the petitioner required the suit premises bona fide, while greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if he is evicted from the suit premises wherein he was living with his sister's son, his wife and children along with his own family. The appellate Bench also held that the petitioner failed to prove the ground under Section 13(1)(1).

(2.) THE said decision was challenged by the petitioner in the above Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While confirming all the findings of the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, Malvankar J. by his order dated September 28, 1972, called for findings of the lower Courts on two points making observations as tinder: The fact remains that it is necessary to have findings on the questions (1) whether respondent No. 1 has acquired suitable residence being a block of two bed -rooms admeasuring 670 square feet in the building belonging to Suvarna Rekha Co -operative Housing Society Ltd., Mahant Road, Extension, Vile Parle (East), and (2) whether he has left the suit premises with all his bag and baggage and has gone to stay in these newly acquired premises. Surely, if the findings recorded on these two points are found to be in favour of the petitioner, it is likely that he may be entitled to a decree in ejectment under Section 13(1)(1) of the Act. It has, therefore, become necessary to call for findings from the trial Court on these two issues.

(3.) THE said concurrent finding of the two Courts below is challenged by Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for the tenant, on the ground that the two Courts have failed to consider the needs of the tenant and all the members of his family and have ignored the balconies and verandahs of the suit premises while making comparison between the areas of the premises in the Society with the suit premises. Mr. Sawant submitted that the word 'suitable' in Section 13(1)(1) meant suitable to the reasonable needs of not only the tenant himself but all the members of his family and this aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the two Courts below.