P A MACHIAH Vs. CHAMPAKLAL NAGINDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-landlord is the owner of the building at 130, Shivaji Park, Bombay. It is a three storied building consisting in all of six flats. One flat of the top floor is occupied by the landlord himself, while another flat on the first floor is in possession of the tenant. Landlord's suit for possession of the flat in possession of the tenant has been decreed concurrently by both the Courts holding that his need of the flat for his growing family was reasonable and bonafide and greater hardship would be caused by not passing a decree of eviction in his favour. The tenant challengers the legality of this decree for eviction in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Undisputable facts show that accommodation in the flats occupied by the landlord and the tenant is almost identical and consist of a kitchen of 10'x10', a bed-room of 10'x12', and a hall of 10'x12', in addition to a water closet and the bath-room, each flat covering roughly an area of 375 square feet. The landlord's family consists of himself, his wife, two grown up sons of marriageable ages and a daughter and a permanent servant. The tenant was an officer in the Western Railways and has retired in or about the year 1961. He was residing in the flat with his three sons. The tenant has now constructed a bungalow at his native place at Coorg, where he stays with his wife. His two married sons have shifted to a flat at Bandra covering an area of 1,000 square feet since May, 1965. The third son is married in the month of November of December, 1966, i.e. a few days before this suit was instituted on January 17, 1967. He is employed as a purser in Air India and is required to be abroad for days together in connection with his duties, when his wife stays with her parents. According to the tenant, the flat is still required by him for his residence, when he returns to Bombay occasionally and also for the residence of his third married son Prakash.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal an affidavit was filed by the landlord indicating that one of the two sons of the tenant residing at Bandra flat has now acquired another flat and is staying separately with his wife and the eldest son has vacated the said Bandra flat and has accommodated one Iyer in the same. In the affidavit in reply filed by Prakash these facts are not disputed, though need for the flat for his own residence is reiterated.