MUTUKRISHNAN NANIKRAM RAJLINGAM Vs. GULAB JUMAN MEHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-landlords have invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and pray to consider their case of bona fide need as contemplated under the provisions of The Bombay Rents hotel Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short "bombay Rent Act") , as small Causes Court, Pune (Trial Court) by its judgment and order dated 25th october, 1991, granted the decree for possession, but the Additional District Judge, pune (Appellate Court) in the Appeal filed by the respondent-tenant by judgment and order dated 28th April, 1992, allowed the Appeal and set aside the trial Court's order that resulted into dismissal of the suit in question.

(2.) The suit premises consists of a room on the ground floor in the house bearing No. 105, situated at Wanawadi Bazar, Pune. The tenancy was monthly @ Rs. 5/- exclusive of taxes. The tenant was in arrears of rent since 1-1-1977. By Notice dated 31-1-1989, tenancy was terminated with effect from 28-2- 1989 on the ground of default, nuisance and reasonable and bona fide need of the family. The respondent-tenant resisted the same. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of the petitioner No. 3 i. e. plaintiff. No. 3 and the other material placed on the record, held that the petitioners proved their reasonable and bona fide need. The issue of greater hardship also favoured the petitioners-landlords. The other grounds were not pressed and, therefore, the same were not decided.

(3.) The Appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant, reversed the said reasoning of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit by holding that the petitioners failed to prove their case of bonafide need. After going through the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is to be noted that the order of reversal by the Appellate Court has two feeble foundations, one that out of 5 petitioners-landlords, only one landlord entered the witness box to depose their need and as the other petitioners failed to enter the witness box the case of bonafide need requirement cannot be said to be honest. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on (Nathulal gangabaks Khandelwal and Ors. v. Nandubai Bansidhar Khandelwal and Ors. ) , 1984 mh. L. J. 253 in support of her submission that the Appellate Court erred in law by reversing the finding given by the Court below on this issue of non- examination of other petitioners to justify their need. In Nathulal (supra) , a division Bench of Bombay High Court has held thus: