TRIMBAK DHONDO BHADSAVALE Vs. JANKIBAI BHARGAV MULAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, taking exception to the conditional decree for ejectment passed against him in appeal.

(2.) DECEASED Jankibai Bhargav. Mulay, whose legal representatives are the respondents to this petition, was the lessor of Mulay's Bungalow, where in the petitioner occupied a three room block as a tenant on an agreement to pay rent Rs. 25/- per month. Jankibai filed a suit claiming that she lived together with her three sons, their wives and children, a total of twelve individuals in all. Her sons were qualified persons, as were their wives. One son was a Dentist and his wife a Medical Practitioner. The couple desired to start spacious clinics of their own in Mulay's Bungalow. Petitioner was in occupation of the suit block, which was on the first floor of the building. The sons being married and having families, wanted to stay in one building, but separately. An offer had been made to petitioner to provide him with alternative accommodation, but to no avail. The petitioner's tenancy had been terminated, he having failed to comply with the demand made in the said notice. Jankibai sued for ejectment. After that lady's death, the suit was continued by her sons. Petitioner in his written statement denied the claims summarized above. It was pleaded that the claim was fanciful, that it contravened Section 25 of the Bombay Rent Act and that greater hardship would be caused to him by a decree for ejectment as compared to that likely to ensue to the plaintiffs in case their claim was rejected. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs and this led the respondents to prefer an appeal. The District Court at Thane permitted respondents to amend the plaint by making it specific that they were claiming the suit tenements not merely for running clinic, but also for residence. It held that the claim was established and that petitioner's hardship could be taken care of by imposing a condition upon the landlords. In this view of the matter, the District Court passed the conditional decree, which reads thus :

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has referred me, to the plaint with which Jankibai came to Court. Reading the same, it must be conceded the Jankibai's emphasis was on grounds other than "residence" for seeking defendant's ejectment. Paras 4 to 7 of the plaint pertain to the grounds on which defendant's ejectment is sought. In para 4, there is a reference to twelve individuals constituting the family headed by Jankibai. Next, there is a reference to the family residing in Mulay's Bungalow for more than 30 years and being widely known in Naupada area of Thane. Para 5 speaks of the accommodation in the occupation of Jankibai and her family being inadequate vis-a-vis requirement. Para 6 is devoted to the requirements of Vishwanath and his wife for the purpose of starting clinics of their own. The words "for residence" were brought into para 7 of the plaint by an amendment effected at the stage of appeal. A plain reading of the plaint would justify the inference that the defendant was sought to be ejected, more or less exclusively to enable Jankibai's son and daughter-in-law to start clinic of their own. Even so, it would not be correct to say-that-was there no reference to the family requiring the suit tenements for residential purposes. The evidence shows that strictly speaking there was not much of compulsion for the plaintiffs to move out defendant for residence, as such. Tenant-Pathak had relinquished possession of a block in the main building and shifted to the extension. Another tenant had moved out completely. But there is no gainsaying the fact that the clinic proposed to be started by Vishwanath and his wife, would be more conveniently placed, if it was on the first floor where there are some living rooms in the occupation of the family. Mr. Tipnis appearing for the lessors relies upon Kishinchand Murjimal v. Bai Kalavati Hansraj Dwarkadas wherein it was held that converting a "residential apartment" into a "hospital" would not amount to the premises being used for purposes other than "residential". This was, when questioning the dismissal of a suit by the trial Court. In the afore-mentioned decision, the landlord, a Public Trust sought residential premises for the purposes of starting a marriage hall or a charitable hospital. Mrs. Abhyankar submits decision is good to the extent it holds that a public trust if it converts residential premises to user for a marriage hall or a charitable hospital, does not effect a change prohibited by Section 25 of the Rent Act. Having perused the judgment, it does not appear that the decision turned upon the identity of the person proposing the change by a public trust. The learned Judge had thus to say :-