INSTITUTE OF RADIO TECHNOLOGY Vs. PANDURANG BABURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three applications in revision against the judgments of the Small Cause Court Judge at Bombay. They arise out of three applications for summons registered as suits under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for eviction of the three defendants, the present petitioners, who were the plaintiffs' tenants. The case for the plaintiffs was that the tenant in each case occupied one block in a building at Dadar belonging to them. The plaintiffs were living and also doing their business near the dock area in Bombay. On account of the explosion which occurred in April last, the property, which they were occupying, was destroyed with the result that they were rendered homeless and a friend of their family accommodated them temporarily. They, therefore, wished to occupy a part of their own premises at Dadar. The first plaintiff, who was an old man, was suffering from cancer, and wanted rooms with good light and air. He, therefore, selected four blocks on the second floor of his building and gave notices to the tenants of those blocks for eviction. As the notices were not complied with, the plaintiffs filed four applications for summons under Section 41.

(2.) THE defendants' case was that they had been occupying the premises for a long time, that the plaintiffs were not in need of four blocks for their reasonable and bona fide occupation and there was no reason why they should be ousted from possession. On the evidence led by the parties the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide required at least three out of the four blocks for their occupation. He, therefore, asked the plaintiffs to select which three out of the four blocks they required. THE plaintiffs selected the three blocks occupied by the present petitioners. THE learned Judge thereafter dismissed the suit as against the defendant in the fourth suit and passed decrees for eviction against the three petitioners. Two of the three blocks are occupied by the Institute of Radio Technology and by its proprietor Mr. Ambre, and the third by a grain merchant. In view of the fact that the Institute had its apparatus and machines installed in the blocks, the learned Judge below gave two months' time to all the defendants within which to vacate the premises. THE petitioners then applied to this Court in revision and obtained interim stay orders.

(3.) IT is next contended that the words in the section are that the premises must be required by the landlord for his own occupation, that the first plaintiff is now dead and the second plaintiff, who is his son, does not require these blocks for his own Occupation. On that point evidence was led, and the first plaintiff, while he was alive, went into the box and stated that his family consisted of his son, his widowed sister, her two daughters, two daughters of his daughter and his cousin. The learned Judge was presumably satisfied with the evidence that those persons were the plaintiff's dependents, and that therefore they were entitled to live along with the plaintiff. In my opinion, the words "his own occupation" mean occupation of himself and all persons who are dependent on him. There is, therefore, no substance in that contention.