SARA RAUF Vs. DURGASHANKAR GANESHLAL SHROFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is by the tenant against whom a decree of ejectment has been passed on the ground available under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act"). Both the courts below have concurrently held that the requirement of the premises by the respondent-landlord is reasonable and bonafide.

(2.) The respondent-landlord is the owner of a bungalow consisting of ground floor and first floor bearing CTS No.9 situate at Church Road, Pune. Both the floors consist of four rooms each (for short "the suit bunglow"). The petitioner-tenant is in possession of the first floor alongwith an attached balcony (for short "the suit premises"), whereas the respondent-landlord is in possession of the ground floor. The status of the petitioner as a protected tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act is not in dispute in the present petition. The monthly rent of the suit premises is Rs.55/-. It appears, initially, even the ground floor of the suit bungalow was also in possession of the tenant and the respondent-landlord has secured possession thereof by contesting a litigation in the court. Though, initially a suit was instituted by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant for eviction on the ground under section 13(1)(l) and 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act, the suit was decreed only on the ground under section 13(1)(g) holding that the requirement of the respondent-landlord is bonafide and reasonable. In the present writ petition we are, therefore, concerned only with this ground.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the tenant mainly on the ground that the requirement of the landlord is not reasonable and bonafide since he has several other properties which could be used for their residence. The reference to few such premises was also made in the written statement. It was also denied that the family of the respondent-landlord consisting of three or four couples with children, was living in a cramped manner on the ground floor of the suit bungalow. It was further stated that the respondent-landlord who owns several house properties suppressed the fact that he has been in possession of various other premises and, therefore, his requirement is not bonafide and reasonable.