NAVINCHANDRA NANJI Vs. JIVRAJ BHANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is quite a wrench as also perturbing for a conscious judicial mind to note that in this case, a suit for eviction was instituted by the petitioner's father (landlord) in the year 1969, that is about forty eight years back. Soon the respondents would have celebrated the golden jubilee of the litigation. While the petitioners await the fruits of the litigation, the respondent-tenant, has been an undeserving beneficiary of the systemic delay in the judicial process. One would recall the following words of Justice K.T. Thomas (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 2 SCC 604 "This case presents a sample scenario of the tormenting plight of an average litigant who approaches the court with all expectations of getting relief for his urgent need. But the snail paced litigation creeping through all the tiers of the judicial hierarchical forums would have frustrated all his expectations, though others could admire the tenacity with which he persisted with the cause. ".

(2.) The petitioners-landlords are before this Court in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment and order dated 15 th April, 1998 passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The appellate Bench, by the impugned judgment has reversed the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge dated 11th October, 1984, by which the learned trial Judge had decreed the petitioners-landlords eviction and possession suit, on the ground of the respondent-tenant acquiring alternative premises. As the original parties have expired, their legal heirs pursued these proceedings. For convenience, the parties are referred as they stand before the trial Court.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises, which is room No. 87, 3 rd floor in a building known as Nanji Ravji Building, Acharya Donde Marg, Sewree, Mumbai - 400 015. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had made permanent alteration in the suit premises. The plaintiff, therefore, by his advocate's letter dated 9th November, 1967 terminated tenancy of the defendant and called upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises. This was denied by the defendant in a reply addressed to the plaintiff by his advocate's letter dated 4th November, 1967. The plaintiff instituted R.A.E. Suit No.1259 of 1969 seeking a decree of eviction and possession against the defendant on the ground as available under Section 13(1)(b),(g) and (l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Bombay Rent Act') firstly that without permission of the plaintiff in writing, the defendant had erected a permanent alteration/structure namely a loft in the suit premises, as also enclosed the common passage by putting up a door converting the passage into a room. The second ground as urged by the plaintiff in seeking an eviction decree, was of the defendant acquiring suitable alternative premises namely a residence at Agrawal Building, No. 211, R.A. Kidwai Marg, Wadala, Mumbai. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendant was residing in the said alternate premises with his family members. Thirdly the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide.