MOHAMMUD RASUL MUJAWAR Vs. NAJAMA IMAMMUDDIN SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Petitions have been filed challenging the common judgment passed by the Appellate Court under the Bombay Rent Act in Regular Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1989 and Regular Civil Appeal No.65 of 1989. Both these Appeals were filed by the Respondent who is the landlady The two Appeals were filed against the two tenants who are occupying one room each in a building owned by the Respondent. The Respondent filed the Regular Civil Suit No.741 of 1978 against the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4762 of 1990 and Regular Civil Suit No.739 of 1978 against the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4763 of 1990.

(2.) BY the Judgment dated 4-8-1988, the trial Court viz. Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, dismissed both the suits. As stated above, two appeals were carried to the Appellate Authority by the Respondent landlord and Appellate Court by a common judgment dated 18-8-1990 allowed both the Appeals.

(3.) ONLY contention urged by Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Counsel for Petitioner is that though because the Respondent landlord is residing in tenanted premises, it may be assumed that the landlady has not established her bonafide need of the premises. In the submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni, in view of the provisions of Sub-Section 2 of Section 13 of the Act a decree of eviction cannot be passed against the tenant merely because it is established on record that the landlady is in bonafide and reasonable need of the premises. Unless the Court is satisfied having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the question whether any other accommodation is available for the landlady or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Sub-Section 2 of Section 13 of the Act provides that unless the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlady by passing the decree in respect of the part of the premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. In the submission of Mr.Kumbhakoni, the Appellate Court has not considered the question of comparative hardship properly. He submitted that the landlady is presently occupying the room though as a tenant, this circumstance was to be taken into consideration by the Appellate Court in considering the aspect of comparative hardship. In the submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni, the Appellate Court has totally ignored this aspect.