ABDUL RAUF MOHAMMAD USMAN Vs. HARUN MOHAMMAD SIDDIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit premises consisting of one room being a part of a building are located at Bhiwandi in Thane District. The respondents herein are the heirs and legal representatives of the owner landlords, since deceased, after the first round of litigation was over .The petitioner was inducted as a monthly tenant with the monthly rental of Rs. 4/-. The plaintiff-landlord terminated the tenancy and demanded vacant possession on ground that he was in need of the suit premises for his personal occupation and the said requirement was also bona fide as also reasonable .According to him, there are about 12 members in his family including two married sons and their wives as also other grown up children. This large family was obliged to reside in two rooms which are in their possession and which was thoroughly insufficient to satisfy their normal needs. Furthermore, power looms are installed in some portion of one room which has further diminished the space for residential purpose. It was also contended that the petitioner-tenant has left the premises since nearly one year and had shifted to his native place and thus the room is being occupied by his wife and daughter being the only members of the house hold. After issuing the notice for termination when the demand in the said notice for possession was not complied with the landlord was obliged to file Regular Civil Suit No. 143 of 1976 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwandi claiming possession of the said room under section 139(1)(g) of the Rent Act.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant resisted the said suit. It was denied that he had left the premises though he had gone to his native place for medical treatment. According to the tenant the landlords so-called requirement is neither bona fide nor reasonable and in support thereof some such circumstances were catalogued such as the landlord has been in possession of the other premises which are being used for different purposes while one of the sons is also residing in other premises. A plea was also taken that the said suit was not maintainable in view of a decision in the earlier suit filed more or less on the same cause of action when the plea under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act was rejected and after the said decree there was no change in the circumstances so as to bring into existence a fresh requirement of the landlord. Both the sides claimed that greater hardship would be caused to them if the matter is decided against them.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge on the basis of the evidence negatived the plaintiffs contention both under section 13(1)(g) as also under section 13(2) of the Rent Act holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the premises were required by him for bona fide occupation. In view of this finding the learned trial Judge felt that it was not really necessary to consider the question of section 13(2) of the Rent Act. However, he answered that question in favour of the tenant holding that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by passing a decree for eviction. The contention that the suit was barred under principle of res judicata in view of the decree in the earlier suit was also up-held against the landlord and in favour of the plaintiff. In keeping with these findings, the suit came to be dismissed on October 17, 1980.