STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ASHMABAI UDATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the tenant against the order passed by the II Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur, allowing the plaintiffs appeal and decreeing the plaintiffs claim for eviction.

(2.) The respondent No. 1, plaintiff is the owner of a house bearing Municipal Number 534 A situate in Sakhar Peth, Sholapur. This house consists of a shop and two rooms on the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor. The ground floor is let out to the petitioner on a rent of Rs. 19.83 per month. In these premises, the petitioner conducts a " Sanskar Kendra" under the supervision of the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Sholapur. It is meant for promoting the cause of prohibition. The plaintiff resides in two rooms on the first floor and the other rooms are let out to two tenants. On 15th November, 1968, the plaintiff gave a notice to the petitioner terminating tenancy by the end of 31st December, 1968. In that notices the petitioner had stated that her husband who was serving in the Mills was about to retire and that he wanted to start a shop for selling bidi leaves. As the petitioner did not comply with the notice, the plaintiff filed suit on 28th November, 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sholapur, for recovery of rent and also for possession of the premises on the ground that she required the suit premisses bona fide for her occupation . The claim was resisted by the petitioner. The defendant denied that the need of the landlady was bona fide and reasonable. The defended also stated that the petitioner would suffer greater hardship if the decree for eviction was passed then would be suffered by the plaintiff if the decree for possession was refused. The trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs claim. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal before the District Court which was heard by the II Extra Assistant Judge who held that the need of the landlady was bona fide and reasonable ; that her husband had actually retired; that his eye sight had been weak and that her marriage daughter who was resisting at Bhivandi had come and begun to stay with her along with her husband and children. He also held that the suit premises were necessary to run the shop and that it was not possible to run the shop on the first floor. He held that the need of the landlady was reasonable and bona fide and greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the claim of the plaintiff is not decreed. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs claim for possession. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Salik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, urged that the learned Assistant Judge has committed an error in holding that the landladys need was bona fide and reasonable. He submitted that it was the case of the landlady that she wanted to start the business for her husband while the case made out in evidence was one of expansion. He also urged that the learned Judge has committed an error in taking on record additional evidence without opportunity being given to the petitioner to challenge that evidence. It is not possible to accept any of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It is true that the learned Assistant Judge has taken on record the certificate issued by the Corporation under the shops and Establishments Act in favour of the respondent No. 1. That certificate is a public document and it was produced for the purpose of showing that the landlady was carrying out business of selling bidi leaves at her residence, and that her claim for ground room for opening a shop after the retirement of her husband was genuine. It dose appear that there was objection on behalf of the petitioner for production of the document but that this is a public document and no more proof was required. The learned Judge has used the document for the limited purpose of showing that the landlady wanted to show that her need was genuine and that she was serious about starting the business. So far as the bona fide need of the landlady was concerned, there is no doubt that her husband had now retired. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in holding that it was very natural for the husband to search a new source of income for sustaining the family especially when his wife was doing business on the small scale from the place of her residence. Mr. Salik further urged that if the landlady was doing the business from her residence, nothing prevents her from continuing the business at her residence only and it was not necessary to shift the place of business. The learned Judge has rightly observed that this is a commercial locality and it is, therefore, very natural for the landlady to expand the business and to shift to the ground floor. The need of the landlady is, therefore, bona fide and reasonable. It is true that the landlady has let out two rooms after issuing the notice to the petitioner but those rooms were on the first floor and not on the ground floor. It is on the ground floor that the landlady wants to open the shop. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the need of the landlady was genuine.