SUSHILA B. SAJNANI Vs. RANJIT KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the landlady who has filed a suit against the respondent for possession of a flat, being Flat No. 5. in Vishwa Shansi Co-operative Housing Society at Kopri Colony, Thane. That suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 219 of 1977, was filed on the ground, among others, that she required the said flat, herein-after referred to as the "suit premises", reasonably and bona fide for her own use and occupation. The respondent resisted the suit by contending that the requirement of the petitioner was neither reasonable not bona fide and, in any case, greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree in eviction were passed than the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner if a decree for possession were refused.

(2.) The learned trial Judge, namely the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane, by his judgment and order dated 18th of July 1981 decreed the suit by holding in favour of the petitioner both on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement and on the ground of comparative hardship. The respondent preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1981, which was heard and allowed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of there by his judgment and order dated 2nd of Dec. 1983. While so doing the learned appellate Judge agreed with the finding given by the learned trial Judge on the question of the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner, but held that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if a decree in eviction were passed than the hardship that would, be caused to the petitioner if a decree for possession were refused. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the appeal Court below the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff, has naturally supported the reasoning underlying the finding, which is concurrent, about the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises. Mr. Walawalkar, however, quarrelled with the finding given by the appellate Judge on the question of comparative hard- ship. It was his case that all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination of the question arising under Sec. 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act", had been fully and exhaustively dealt with by the learned trial Judge and the appeal Court should not have lightly interfered with that finding.