SONABAI L UDGIRKAR Vs. RANIYABAI B AHIRGAWALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Plaintiffs who are Petitioners herein seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1986 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Pune whereby the said Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune on 30th January, 1984, and, as a consequence thereof the original Plaintiff's suit for eviction stood dismissed.

(2.) THE disputed premises comprise of one room admeasuring 10'x 12' situated on the ground floor of House No. 943, Bootee Street, Pune. THE Petitioners (original plaintiffs) are owners of the said premises which were let out to the Respondent Smt. Raniyabai B. Ahirgawali (original Defendant) @ Rs.8.00 p.m. THE original Plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the original defendant on the ground that they need the suit premises for their personal use and occupation since they have only two rooms in their possession for their residence and more accommodation is required. It was also pleaded that if the decree for eviction was not raised they would suffer greater hardship. THE original defendant admitted in the written statement that she was in occupation of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.8.00. She, however, submitted that Plaintiffs have already sufficient accommodation with them and, therefore, they do not reasonably and bonafide require the premises. It was also pleaded by the original defendant that her family consists of 8 members and in case they are evicted from suit premises they would be thrown on the road. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties, the trial court held that the premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the Plaintiffs and that greater hardship would be caused to the original Plaintiffs if eviction decree was refused. THE judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 30th January, 1984 was carried in appeal by original defendant and 4th Additional District Judge, Pune after hearing the learned counsel for the parties confirmed the finding of the trial court that premises in question are required reasonably and bonafide by the original Plaintiffs. However, on the question of greater hardship, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and held that in case decree for eviction was passed the original defendant would suffer greater hardship. THE said finding of greater hardship is challenged by the original Plaintiffs in the writ petition.

(3.) WRIT petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune on 27.2.1986 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court Pune dated 30.1.84 is restored. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.