DATTARAYA PILAJI ATRE Vs. S G HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 1626 of 1972, in the Court of Small Causes at Pune, against the respondent for possession of a tenement having an area of 1233 square feet tenanted by the respondent in this petition. Along with the said tenement, a garage also formed part of the tenancy of the respondent. The suit was filed by the petitioner for possession of the aforesaid tenement and the garage, hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises", on the ground that the petitioner required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation. It was the case of the petitioner that he was constrained to file the suit because his tenanted premises had been partly, at any rate, acquired by the Municipality of Pune, for the road-widening scheme as a result of which the area which was available to him for residence had been drastically reduced. He also pleaded that his unmarried daughter who was staying at Bombay intended to come and settle down at Pune because, according to the petitioner, the Bombay climate did not suit her, who is an artist by profession, and the Pune climate would be beneficial to her.

(2.) The respondent resisted the suit by denying the reasonable and bonafide nature of the requirement pleaded by the petitioner and also by contending that if a decree for possession were passed greater hardship would be caused to him than the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner if a decree for possession were refused.

(3.) The learned trial Judge raised several issues, not all of them relevant to the questions which he had to decide in a suit filed essentially for possession under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act". Nevertheless, he did raise issues which were relevant and answered the issue on the question of the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the petitioner in the affirmative. He also considered the issue arising under Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and answered, again, that issue in favour of the petitioner predominantly. He noticed that the family of the respondent was considerably large, but the hardship that would be caused to the respondent by the passing of a decree could, according to the learned trial Judge, be mitigated if a part of the suit premises were allowed to be retained by the respondent. Accordingly, by his judgment and order dated 7th of April, 1979 the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for possession of the area tenanted by the respondent, except one room.