YESHWANT MAHADEO TAPALE Vs. SHIVPRAKASH MANGILAL DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and decree dtd. 27/4/2018, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the non-applicants (original plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree dated 23 rd January, 2015, in Regular Civil Suit No.26/2007. In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the plaint. The applicant is the original defendant. The non-applicants are the original plaintiffs. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hinganghat. In the appeal, the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat, set aside the judgment and decree and allowed the appeal. The learned District Judge-1 granted the decree for eviction of the defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement as provided under Sec. 16(1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, "the Maharashtra Rent Control Act").

(2.) The facts are as follows:

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is doing service at Mohta Mill. He has been residing in the accommodation provided by the Company. The plaintiffs have proposed to construct a new house. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 retired on 15/7/2011. He has been employed as a retainer. It is a temporary job. The plaintiffs do not have a suitable premises for residence at Hinganghat. Similarly, they have no premises for starting their business for the livelihood of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs are in need of suit premises to provide a source of livelihood to plaintiff No.2. They do not have alternative accommodation for starting the business. The remaining house in their possession is used for residential purpose. It is their case that the defendant is having alternative accommodation in Jawaharlal Nehru Ward, Hinganghat. He can start his business there. The tenancy of the defendant was, therefore, terminated vide notice dtd. 11/2/2006. The defendant did not vacate the suit premises after receipt of the notice. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is having alternative shop premises, and therefore he would not suffer hardship in case a decree is passed.