SHRIDHAR K. BERDE Vs. RANJEETMAL J. OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has filed this Revision Application challenging the decree dtd. 19/4/2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2022 thereby dismissing the Petitioner's Appeal and confirming the decree dtd. 31/3/2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Suit No.290 of 2014. The Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiff-Landlord for eviction and has directed the Applicant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Mr. Vinayak Purushottam Dali originally owned the entire Municipal House No.2481, in which Applicant and one Ranjitmal Shahuraj Oswal were monthly tenants. Applicant is monthly tenant in respect of Gala No.1 whereas said Ranjitmal Oswal was the tenant in respect of neighbouring Gala No.2. Mr. Ranjitmal Oswal purchased the entire property bearing Municipal House No.2481 from the owner Vinayak Dali vide registered sale-deed dtd. 27/5/2011 and thus become the landlord qua Applicant in respect of Gala No.1. As observed above, Plaintiff Ranjitmal Oswal was already possessing the neighboring Gala No.2 in capacity as tenant of original owner Vinayak Dali.

(3.) Soon after purchase of the entire property bearing Municipal House No.2481, Plaintiff-Ranjitmal Oswal filed RCS No.290 of 2014 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division against Applicant seeking recovery of possession of Gala No.1 in Municipal House No.2481 (suit premises) from the Applicant. Plaintiff pleaded his bonafide need in resepct of the suit premises. He also pleaded that he intended to redevelop the entire property bearing Municipal House No.2481 for the purpose of expansion of the business and for his son. The suit was resisted by Applicant by filing written statement. During pendency of the suit, original Plaintiff-Ranjitmal Oswal passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record. The Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit by Judgment and Order dtd. 31/3/2022, holding that the Plaintiff requires the suit premises for his bonafide need and that greater hardship would be caused to the Plaintiff by refusing the decree for eviction. The Trial Court therefore directed Applicant to deliver possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff within 03 months.