LALSINGH PARDESHI Vs. MAHADEO SULAKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, allowing the landlords appeal and decreeing his claim for possession. It is not necessary for the purpose of this petition to enumerate all the facts in details nor it is necessary to state the various grounds on which the landlord requires the suit premises. It is enough to state that amongst the various grounds on which the landlord claimed possession, one was that the landlord required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his use and occupation. It appears that the landlord owns two hours, House No. 101 and House No. 102, at Mahatma Gandhi, Road, Poona Camp. House No. 102 consists of two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor and this house is in exclusive possession of the landlord. He uses the ground floor for the purpose of business viz. conducting a tailoring shop and the two rooms on the first floor he uses for the purpose of his residence. So far House No. 101 is concerned, it also consists of four rooms. Two rooms on the ground floor of this house have been let out to the petitioners and the two rooms on the first floor are used by the landlord for his residence. The front room is used by the petitioners for their business viz. conducting laundry business and the rear room is used for the purpose of their residence. In addition to this, the landlord has also purchased another house at Sachapir Street in 1948. It was alleged by the petitioners that this house was available to the landlord for his occupation but it is the case of the landlord that this house is in occupation of the tenants right from the date of the purchase and, therefore, it is not available for his use and occupation. The petitioners also stated that the landlord has also two shops at Deccan Gymkhana where he is conducting business. THIS is not disputed but it is the case of the landlord that they are four brothers and each one of them is conducting his shop. It is also his case that these three shops, one in House No. 101 and two at Deccan Gymkhana are conducted by his three brothers and his one brother Dattatraya was serving with one V.K. Rao, Tailor upto 1966. THIS V.K. Rao expired and, therefore, he had to start tailoring business for his brother and for that purpose he required the suit premises. The landlord issued a notice of termination of tenancy asking the petitioners to vacate the suit premises but on failure of the petitioners to comply with the notice, the landlord filed a suit. The necessary issues were framed by the learned trial Judge. The parties led evidence and the learned trial Judge, after examining all the material that was placed before him, came to the conclusion that the landlord has failed to establish his case and, therefore, dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the landlord filed an appeal before the District Court which was heard by the Extra Assistant Judge, Poona. He observed that the need of the landlord for running his business was established as his brother Dattatraya was thrown out of the employment due to the death of V.K. Rao. It was also observed that the family of the landlord consisted of 30 members. He also observed that there are 15 boys and girls in the landlords family. He has also taken into consideration the say of the petitioners that four girls from the landlords family were married. He observed that the girls have gone to their husbands places but the boys are grown up and they are to be married and that is why they needed privacy and, therefore, the need of more accommodation and rooms was established on behalf of the landlord. He has also taken into consideration the say of the petitioners that they had 13 members in their family, but he observed that the petitioner No. 1 owned, along with his brother, an open plot in Bhavani Peth, Poona. The petitioner No. 1 has stated before the Corporation authority that he was residing on that plot with his brothers. He, therefore, observed that in view of the availability of this accommodation, the petitioners will not suffer greater hardship and he came to the conclusion that if the decree for eviction is not passed in favour of the landlord, the landlord would suffer greater hardship than which would be suffered by the petitioner. Consistent with these findings, he observed that the landlord has established his claim and, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the landlords claim for possession on the ground that the landlord needed the house reasonably and bona fide for his use and occupation. It is against this judgment that this petition has been filed. Mr. Damle, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court regarding (1) the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord and (2) the comparative hardship. It is not possible to accept this contention. The learned Appellate Judge has taken all the facts into consideration. He had taken into consideration every accommodation that was in occupation of the landlord and the petitioners. He observed that Sachapir house was not available to the landlord. So far as House No. 102 is concerned, only two rooms are occupied by the landlord for his residence on the upper floor and two rooms in House No. 101 are used for the purpose of his residence. That means, 30 members have to be accommodated in four rooms only. Most of the members of the family are grown up and the boys are to be married. The landlord has also three married brothers in the family. The learned Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide and reasonable. He has also taken into consideration the business that was being conducted by the landlord. He observed that there were two tailoring shops at Deccan Gymkhana and one of his brothers was unemployed and it was very necessary for him to find out some business for him. He was employed in a tailoring shop and, therefore, the plaintiff rightly wanted to start a tailoring shop in the suit premises. The plaintiff has a large family consisting of 30 members and, therefore, they have got to expand their business. Thus, the need of the landlord was established. So far as the comparative hardship is concerned, he has rightly observed that the Bhavani Peth plot was available to the petitioners for their occupation. The petitioner No. 1 has himself stated in the application to the Corporation authority that he was staying there in the plot. It is true that the petitioner No. 1 has denied to have made such a statement. I have myself seen this statement but that is not a statement recorded by the Corporation authority but it is an application made by the petitioner No. 1 himself. He was not directed to make that application but he has voluntarily made that application for mutation of his name. There was no manner of doubt that this application was made voluntarily and I do not see any reason why that should not be accepted. The learned Judge was right in accepting that statement and coming to the conclusion that the petitioners would not suffer any hardship if he was asked to vacate the suit premises. The petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged with costs.