UTTAMCHAND CHAMANLAL Vs. SITA JERAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have found that the landlady requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for her own occupation. The suit premises are a flat with two bedrooms, one hall and a kitchen.

(2.) THE landlady filed a civil suit, being R.A.E.Suit No.168/521/1981, claiming that she is presently residing in a flat held by her brother as a tenant and, therefore, she needs the suit premises bonafide for her own occupation. The Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the landlady was initially residing with her sister and thereafter she has been residing in a flat which is held by her brother as a tenant and, therefore, both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the landlady, who is a widow, needs the premises bonafide for her own occupation. So far as the aspect of comparative hardship is concerned, the Appellate Court has observed that the tenant of the premises is the petitioner-partnership firm and one of the partners, by name Manoharlal, is presently occupying the suit premises. He has not entered the witness-box. The Appellate Court has found that the partnership firm is earning huge profits and is financially well-off and, therefore, comparing the need of the landlady, who is an old widow, greater hardship is likely to be caused to the landlady than to the tenant in case a decree is not passed in favour of the landlady.

(3.) IT is to be seen here that it is common ground before me that the suit premises are the only residential premises owned by the landlady. In so far as the flat in Pipewalla Building is concerned, initially the flat was held as a tenant by the brother of the landlady with whom she was residing. Even if it is assumed, though the question is yet to be decided in R.A.E.Suit No.109/307/1987 which is still pending, that she has become a tenant of that flat after the death of her brother, it cannot be forgotten that the landlord of that flat has filed a civil suit for a decree of eviction against the landlady and her brother in the year 1987 and, therefore, assuming that the landlady is having accommodation in Pipewalla Building as a tenant, her occupation of that flat is threatened as the landlord has filed a civil suit and, therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that because the landlady is holding the flat in Pipewalla Building as a tenant, she does not need the suit premises, cannot be accepted. In my opinion, though a landlord may be holding some accommodation as a tenant, it cannot be said that he cannot seek a decree of eviction against the tenant who is occupying the premises owned by the landlord when they are the only premises owned by him. Therefore, in my opinion, the need of the landlady of the suit premises is established.