PURUSHOTTAM B.ASOPHA Vs. KARAMCHAND JOIOMAL LULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the original plaintiffs who filed a civil suit no. 2296 of 1976 in the court of 2nd Additional Judge, Court of small Causes at Pune for possession of the suit premises consisting of 4 khans situated on the ground floor and two khans situated on the 1st floor of the building at Gurwar Peth, Pune. Admittedly the tenant was running a business of hotel in the premises on the ground floor and the first floor premises were leased out for residence.

(2.) THE plaintiffs sought possession of the entire premises on several grounds including on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. Inasmuch as the counsel Shri Jakhadi, appearing for the petitioners has restricted his submissions only on the issue of bonafide personal requirement and hardship; it is unnecessary to deal with other aspects discussed in the judgments of both the courts below.

(3.) SO far as the requirement of the hotel premises are concerned the trial court found that the plaintiff is a hawker. The plaintiffs father was a poojari. However, he had no liking in the business and he was always residing outside Poona, and it is after father's death he came to stay at Pune. He had no sufficient fund to start any new business. Even the business run by the plaintiff was running at losses. The plaintiff admits that he is a poojari and could not start any business. The learned Judge of the trial court therefore held that it can very well be held that the requirement of the plaintiff is not bonafide and reasonable to have business premises. However the learned Judge held that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to work as poojari till death. The plaintiff is selling cups and saucers on a small scale. therefore the requirement of the plaintiff cannot be said as malafide. The defendant was having business premises elsewhere. He sold the running business and started working as a manager of Surana and afterwords purchased the running business i.e. the suit premises. The learned Judge also held that though the plaintiff no.1 is not having much of business experience of selling cups and saucers he cannot be compelled to continue it. As such the learned Judge held that the plaintiff's need in bonafide and reasonable.