KISANRAO MADHAVLAL BARTAKKA Vs. NARAYAN DHODI SHETE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is, in my opinion, a conflict between the judgments of two Single Judge of this Court on the question of interpretation of a provision of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act and that compels me to refer that question to a Division Bench. The conflict between the two judgments becomes apparent while considering the contentions on behalf of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2618 of 1977. The facts involved in this petition must, therefore, be briefly stated.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of two rooms, each measuring 6 khans, forming part of a building bearing City Survey No. 2620, situated in Akluj town of Malshiras Taluka of Sholapur District. Of the too rooms one is on the road side while the other is on the rear side. There is between them an open space. By a notice dated 7th November, 1970 the landlord, who is the respondent in this petition, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner with effect from 30th November, 1970 and thereafter filed a suit on 10th December, 1970 for possession of the two rooms, hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises", on the ground, among others, that he required the same reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The petitioner resisted the suit by denying the reasonableness and bona fide of the requirement of the respondent-plaintiff and by contending that in any case greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree for possession were passed.

(3.) The suit being, Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 1971, was tried and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras by his judgment and Order dated 30th April, 1976. He held in favour of the respondent on the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the respondent of the suit premises for the use and occupation of his son. He also held that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if a decree for possession were refused. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being Civil No. 177 of 1977, which was heard and dismissed by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge of Sholapur by his judgment and order dated 10th October, 1977. The learned II Extra Assistant Judge in his judgment held that requirement of the suit premises for the purpose of the residence of the respondents son was not established whereas the requirement of the suit premises for the purpose of a shop to be opened by the respondents son was clearly proved. This was, in the opinion of the learned Assistant Judge, enough to sustain the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court. On the question of hardship, the learned Assistant Judge, reviewed the entire evidence on record and found that there was other accommodation available to the petitioner near by and therefore no greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner if a decree for eviction were passed. At the same time, he also held towards the end of paragraph 20 of his judgment that the respondent would be put to greater hardship if the decree is refused to him.