ERRAYA ELAYYA KATKAM Vs. VAIDYA N R ADIGOPPUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition are challenging the judgment of the District Judge, Poona, by which he reversed the decision of the Second Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Poona, who had decreed the petitioners suit for eviction.

(2.) The three petitioners are brothers who jointly own the suit premises which consist of a room occupied by respondent No. 1 on rent of Rs. 15.50 per month. Alleging that the defendant had secured residence and employment at Davenewadi, Taluka Purandar and that plaintiff No. 2 who was presently staying in the rented premises needed the suit premises bona fide and for his own use, a notice of eviction was served on the defendant-respondent No. 1 and a suit for ejectment was filed. In the plaint the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant had neglected to pay rent and that the premises were being used for business purposes as he was carrying on business of preparing bidis in the suit premises through some other persons. The defendant denied the plaintiffs claim. According to him, his wife and children were still staying at Poona, though he himself served at Davenewadi. He denied that he was carrying on any business or that he had changed the user of the premises. He also denied that he had neglected to pay any rent and, according to him, he had sent rent by money orders to the plaintiffs, but plaintiff No. 1 had refused to receive the money order.

(3.) The trial Court negatived the plaintiffs claim for possession on all grounds except the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement. Before the trial Court plaintiff No. 2 whose need was set out in the plaint was examined and, according to him, he had vacated the rented premises as he had so promised his own landlord and was staying in the premises of his son-in-law one Gangaram who was also examined as a witness. The trial Court accepted the evidence of plaintiff No. 2 and his son-in-law Gangaram. The trial Court further held that plaintiff No. 2 was staying in rented premises and he could not be compelled to stay in rented premises when he had got his own premises. Thus he came to a finding that the plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for residence. On the issue of hardship, the trial Court held that the defendant would be able to get alternative accommodation and no hardship would be caused to him if a decree for possession would be passed. The trial Court further held that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if a decree for possession will be refused as he was staying in premises of another person and the reference obviously was to the premises of his son-in-law Gangaram. Thus, though the plaintiffs claim for possession on other grounds was rejected, since it was found that the plaintiff No. 2 required the premises reasonable and bona fide, a decree for possession of the suit premises was passed as also a decree for Rs. 29.50. The trial Court also fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 6.50 exclusive of electricity charges and education cess.