CHANDRAYYA LINGAYYA UPALWAR Vs. NARAYAN EKNATH NAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The-petitioner is landlord and respondent is tenant. The premises in question consist of one room admeasuring 9' x 10. The monthly tenancy was @ Rs. 25. 00. On 27-8-1984, petitioner-landlord filed Regular civil Suit No. 653 of 1984 for possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent, as well as, bonafide need. The same was resisted by the respondent-tenant by Written statement. The parties led evidence. The Joint civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur (for short "trial Court") , after considering the evidence and the material on the record, decreed the suit only on the ground of default. The grounds of bonafide need and comparative hardship were not considered at all. The other ground of acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation was also rejected. Respondent-tenant, therefore, preferred Appeal no. 305 of 1990 before the Additional District judge, Solapur (for short "appellate Court"). Cross-objections were also filed. By the impugned judgment and order dated 25-11- 1992, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the present Writ petition by the petitioner-landlord.

(2.) Heard Mr. Jagdish Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlord. None appeared for the respondent, though served. The petitioner-landlord's case of bonafide need has a foundation supported by the evidence, basically when the respondent- tenant himself in his evidence stated "one Hair cutting Saloon is running close to me. It belongs to the plaintiff. He was running the shop there on rent". "the entire suit house is admeasuring 20' x 20'. It is true to say that the plaintiff resides in one room". Apart from the above admission of the respondent on the record, plaintiff's own evidence further supports his case of bonafide need that there were, in all, 8 members in his family including his wife and five children. His two daughters, at the relevant time, were aged 26 and 23 years respectively and his sons were aged 21 and 17 years. In view of the above facts and supporting material on the record, I am of the view that the petitioner-landlord has made out his genuine case of bonafide need to the premises in question. The Apex Court has observed in 2005 (2) Mh. L J. 5: [2005 (5) ALL mr (S. C. ) 326], Adil Jamshed Frenchman deceased by LRs. Vs. Sardar Dastur School trust and Ors. as follows :

(3.) Both the Courts below have completely overlooked the foundation of the above facts read with the law on this aspect, basically the principle concerning the bonafide requirement of the landlord, as observed in the following authorities. 2005 (3) Mh. LJ. 196, goverdhandas Mulchand Agrawal and Ors. Vs. Bherulal Uderam Bagade and Anr. ; 2001 (4) ALL MR 61, Shankar Bhairoba vadangekar (thru LRs. ) Vs. Ganpati Appa gatare (thru. LRs. ) and 2001 (4) ALL MR 536 (S. C. ) , S. R. Babu Vs. T. K. Vasudevan and Ors. The Material relevant observations of the Apex Court are :