BHALCHANDRA VINAYAK DURVE Vs. BAPURAO KHANDERAO KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 18-8-1968 passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, in Civil Appeal No. 736 of 1968 in the proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, (hereafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) The petitioner in this petition is the landlord of the suit premises which consists of the entire ground floor except one room in a two storeyed bungalow which is situate at City Survey No. 573/1, Jangli Maharaj Road, Shivaji Nagar, Poona. Respondents Nos. 1(A to E) are the heirs of the original tenant who died pending this petition. Originally the entire ground floor in the said bungalow was let out in the year 1946 to the tenant. Admittedly in the year 1949 the tenant voluntarily handed over the possession of one room to the landlord in order to satisfy the landlords requirement which as was made out then was for the purpose of opening an office for his son who had started practising as a lawyer. Admittedly further there were two suits filed by the landlord against the tenant for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. The said suits were Suit No. 1522 of 1953 and Suit No. 1125 of 1959. The said suits were dismissed since it was held that the landlord has not proved his bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises. Thereafter by a notice dated 25-6-1965 the landlord again terminated the tenancy of the tenant and demanded possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required them for his bona fide and personal occupation. The requisition in the said notice having been not complied with, the landlord filed the present suit on 1-10-1965. The said suit being Suit No. 2948 was dismissed by the trial Court which held that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises. In appeal against the said decision of the trial Court, the Appellate Court by its impugned order confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the landlords appeal. This petition is directed against the said order of the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) Mr. Dalvi who appears for the petitioner landlord contended that the finding given by the lower Appellate Court on the issue of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord was vitiated because the lower Appellate Court had not taken into consideration the comparative strength of the family of the landlord and of the tenant and the premises in their respective possession. He urged that this Court has in a decision in (Mangharam Chubarmal v. B.C. Patel) 73 Bom.L.R. 140 held that while considering the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord, the situation of the tenant should be taken into consideration. In other words, what Mr. Dalvi wanted to urge was that while considering the requirement of the landlord, the comparative accommodation in the possession if the tenant should be taken into consideration. Mr. Dalvi urged that this was one of principles laid down in the said decision. Inasmuch as the lower Appellate Court had not taken into consideration the strength of the tenants family and the size of accommodation in the possession of the tenant, the decision of both the courts below is liable to be quashed. In the first instance I do not find that there is any such proposition of law laid down in the decision relied on by Mr. Dalvi. The said decision has to be read in the context of the facts which were before the Court and the arguments which were advanced before the learned judge. In main contention which was advanced before the Court in that case was that the bona fide and reasonable requirements of the landlord have to be considered without reference to the hardship or plight in which the tenant will be placed if a decree of eviction is passed against the tenant. Referring to this contention the learned Judge had made certain observations on which Mr. Dalvi based his entire argument. The said observations in their context have been reproduced below. The observations on which Mr. Dalvi has relied on heavily in support of his argument are under lined. Mr. Sorabjee wants me not to follow the English Law on the ground that the words reasonably and bona fide refer to the landlord without reference to the tenant. I am not prepared to agree with this submission. As I have shown above, even when one of the three words were used, i.e. bona fide or reasonably or required in the various Indian statutes dealing with rent legislation, the courts have considered all the relevant factors, objectively without reference to the landlord while deciding either the bona fides or the reasonableness or the bare requirement of the landlord. It is emphasised in so many words that the mere wish or the intention of the landlord is not sufficient to give him a right to evict the tenant. The Rent Act is enacted with the avowed object of protecting tenants against unreasonable eviction. While considering the relevant factors for deciding the bona fide and reasonableness of the landlords requirement, the tenant cannot be forgotten for all the time. Various objective facts are mentioned like the public good, the hardship of the landlord, the plight of the tenant and it is said that the courts should take a broad common sense view of the whole matter. But at the same time while considering the reasonableness of the landlords requirement, the mere fact that the tenant will be evicted and will suffer hardship is per se not relevant. It is the inevitable consequence of every order in ejectment which would be passed in favour of the landlord. If that is considered as decisive then the landlord, who, bona fide and reasonably requires the premises, will fail in all cases. But the tenants hardship may be linked up with the conduct of the landlord and may give rise to some consideration of justice and equity in favour of the tenant. Such factors will have to be objectively considered while deciding the question of bona fides and reasonableness of the landlords requirement. For instance, if the landlord lets out an open plot of land to the tenant and later on connives at or consents to the construction of some structure thereon at considerable cost by the tenant and shortly thereafter starts eviction proceedings, the tenants hardship attributable to the landlords conduct is a relevant factor which will reflect not only on his bona fides but also on the reasonableness of his requirement. I have given only one illustration to indicate as to how certain factors will have to be objectively considered while deciding the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. In my view that will be the true meaning of the expression reasonably and bona fide required used in section 13(1) of the Rent Act. Each case will have to be decided on the facts as appearing in that case. These are the only general observations which any Court can make while interpreting these two words".