GOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA Vs. BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions can be disposed off together since they are between the same parties and relate to the same premises. Writ Petition No. 5022 of 1989 has been filed by the tenant, Govindram mundada against the judgment and decree dated 11th October, 1989 passed by the District Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No 1040 of 1986, whereby the respondent-landlord's suit has been partly decreed. Under the said decree, the petitioner tenant has been directed to handover the possession of the residential portion in his premises i. e. to say the first and second floor in his occupation to the respondent landlord, Badrinarayan Bhutada. Since the tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the residential premises he has filed this writ petition challenging that part of the decree.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 1672 of 1990 has been filed by the landlord, badrinarayan Bhutada against the same judgment and decree dated 11 th october 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 1040 of 1986. The grievance of the landlord Badrinarayan Bhutada in his petition is that the appeal Court having recorded a finding in his favour on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Bombay Rent act) the decree for eviction of the business premises viz. , the shop on the ground-floor ought not to have been refused only on the ground of hardship by relying upon the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the said Rent Act. In short, what the landlord, Badrinarayan Bhutada is challenging in his petition is the finding on the ground of greater hardship being caused to the tenant on account of which the decree for eviction of the tenant from the shop premises has been denied t o him. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. The brief facts, need to be stated are as under.

(3.) THE suit premises bear City Survey No. 573, Raviwar Peth, Pune. Badrinarayan Bhutada is the landlord of the said premises and Govindram mundada is the tenant thereof. The suit for eviction was filed in September, 1982 alleging three grounds. (i) Arrears of rent, (ii) Damage and nuisance, and (iii) Reasonable and bona fide requirement within the meaning of section 13 (1) (g) of the Rent Act. It is not necessary to deal with the first two grounds any longer because there is a concurrent finding of fact against the landlord, on those issues and there is no argument before me advanced by the landlord on those issues.