JUGALKISHOR MADANLAL OZA Vs. MURLIDHAR BANDOBA LAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above writ petitions seek to challenge Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1988 passed by the District Judge, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1986. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal and are decided by this common Judgment. Writ Petition No. 2429 is filed by the tenant. Writ Petition No. 3999 filed by the landlord.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, facts in Writ Petition No. 2429 of 1988 are mentioned hereinbelow :

(3.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that in the present case on the question of Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act, both the Courts below have given concurrent finding. Both the Courts have taken into account the size of the respective families. However, in view of the fact that smaller portion is ordered to be vacated by the tenant which admeasures about 230 sq.ft. only, situated on the IInd floor of the premises and particularly in view of the finding given by both the Courts that Vilas died in 1985 and his widow and three children were required to shift their accommodation twice or thrice and that the accommodation in their possession required them to pay Rs. 170/- per month, conclusively proves firstly that there is no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Secondly, the Lower Appellate Court has done substantial justice to the facts of the case by granting partial Decree. Although both the families consist of approximately 15 members, the fact remains that Plaintiff No. 4 Vilas, since deceased, has a family of widow and 3 children and they were required to shift accommodation during the interregnum, several times. Merely because there was no threat of eviction does not mean that they have not shifted twice or thrice during the interregnum. The fact is also proved that even in the present accommodation they were required to pay huge amount of rent of Rs. 170/- per month. The said rent is paid by the widow and her three children and taking into account the totality of the facts in the present case, the Lower Appellate Court has done substantial justice by granting partial Decree. The smaller area is given to the landlord. The larger area is retained by the tenant. From the evidence, it appears that the tenants are also financially well placed. There is no merit in the contention that the widow of plaintiff No. 4 has an alternative accommodation. The accommodation alleged is a plot. The said plot of land is an open piece of land. The widow has no finances to construct a house thereon and taking into account the totality of all the abovementioned facts, the Lower Appellate Court, on the ground of hardship under Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has passed a partial Decree as stated hereinabove.