RAMCHANDRA ANANT PAVASKAR Vs. BALABAI KAMALAKANT VAJRATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a dispute between the landlords and the tenant under the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioners-landlords had filed a suit against the respondent for eviction on the ground that the premises were required bona fide for their own occupation. The suit was resisted by the respondent. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs need is bona fide and greater hardship will be caused to them unless a decree in eviction was passed against the respondent. The petitioners suit was decreed. Respondents appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge and in the result the petitioners suit is dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Sali, who appears for the plaintiffs, argued that the Appellate Judgment deserves to be set aside as the entire approach of the learned District Judge is preserve on both the points involved in the suit. He pointed out that petitioners 1 and 2 are in Bombay. Petitioner No. 2 is married. Petitioners 1 and 3 who are brothers, are yet to be married. Petitioner No. 4 also a brother, is conducting a shop in the front portion of their residential accommodation. The suit premises will be the western half of the building owned by the petitioners. The total built up area appears to be 48 x 27. The western half is in occupation of the respondent. The case made out by the petitioners was that the petitioners would require the additional accommodations as petitioners 1 and 3 are of marriageable age. Although they are respectively 34 and 30, they have not been able to get married for want of additional accommodation. The appellate Judge has considered the evidence which consists of the depositions of petitioners 3 and 4. He considered it extremely unlikely that petitioner No. 1 would give up his job in Bombay and go back to his native town, i.e., Vengurla. He also recorded a finding that considering the extent of the accommodation now available to the petitioners there will be no difficulty even if petitioners 1 and 3 get married as more members can be easily accommodated in the petitioners premises. These are all questions of fact. It cannot be said that the finding on bona fide requirement is by any stretch of imagination perverse.

(3.) Then Mr. Sali submitted that the finding on the question of relative hardship is also erroneous. If the petitioners failed on the first point, it is needless to consider the second issue. I agree with the learned Appellate Judge that a decree in ejectment in the circumstances will cause greater hardship to the defendant. Defendant is a widow. She is staying in the suit premises with her children for about 12 years. It is true that one of her sons is employed as coolly. She herself is working in some cashew factory. The answers given by the plaintiff show that it is not possible to easily get accommodation in Vengurla these days.