ANANT SADASHIV GOHAD Vs. GOPAL VITHAL GHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition taking exception to the passing and confirmation of a decree for possession under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "Act".

(2.) THE short point for determination which arises in this petition has to be considered in the following background :-

(3.) FOR petitioner it was contended that Rajnikant was in occupation of Rasta Peth premises where he was conducting Accountancy and Music classes. The claim of plaintiff and Rajnikant about the latter being a sub-tenant of Gangubai Jadhav was patently false. There appears to be some substance in this submission. We have the bare word of plaintiff and Rajnikant in support of the assertion that the latter is a sub-tenant vis-a-vis some part of the premises leased out to Gangubai Jadhav. If there was any truth in this story, plaintiff would have examined Gangubai Jadhav to establish the same. If the Rasta Peth premises belonged to the joint family consisting of plaintiff and Rajnikant and, they do, the better inference is that Gangubai Jadhav has vacated some portion thereof so as to make it available for the use of Rajnikant. Now Rajnikant wants a single room wherein he can set up business as an Advocate. But this can be done with convenience upon the Rasta Peth premises also. As to Mahesh, I really see no reason why plaintiff's claim for requiring the suit premises to set up that boy in business should be disbelieved. Mahesh may not be having a licence to work as a wireman. But no licence is required to work as a dealer in electrical goods. Mahesh has experience of the business of electrical goods. How much capital is required to set up business in that line is not really relevant. This is so because it cannot be argued that any fixed capital is required for the setting up of business. If the investment is small, the returns will be small, and conversely, larger returns would depend upon a larger investment. Geetay has given an assurance to Mahesh that he will grant him a sub-dealership. That again is not unbelievable. If there is a sub-dealer, Geetay's sales will increase. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural or unbelievable in plaintiff's desire to utilise the suit premises for setting up Mahesh in business. The need seems to be bonafide as also reasonable.