HUSSEIN ABBAS SATARKAR Vs. RASABBI ABDUL KAYUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one room admeasuring 10 x 10 feet in house property bearing survey No.1240, situate at Raviwar Peth, Pune, which will be herein after referred to as the suit premises. The rent of the suit premises is rupees eight per month. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the suit property in 1972. The present suit being Civil Suit No.1107 of 1980 is filed by the respondents for possession contending inter alia, that there are about 10 members in the family of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 they are in possession of only one room, admeasuring about two khans. The suit premises are, therefore, required for the occupation of the family members since the present accomodation is insufficient to accommodate all the members of the family. It was contended that the petitioner had left Pune permanently and went to stay at his native place Rampur in Patan Taluka of Satara District and, therefore, the petitioner does require the suit premises. It was also claimed that the petitioner is a wilful defaulter but this ground is negatived by both the Courts and not pressed before me in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner resisted the suit. He denied that he was a defaulter. He denied that the respondents require the premises bona fide for their occupation. He also denied that he had shifted to his native place. According to the petitioner, he went to his native place as he was sick and to have a change in climate and stayed there with his elder son at Patan for some time. He contended that he is staying in the suit premises with his three sons and a daughter and his wife. There are 7 members in his family and greater hardship will be caused to him if decree for possession is passed.

(3.) AN appeal was carried by the unsuccessful landlords to the District Court, Pune being Civil Appeal No.643 of 1983. The District Court by its judgment and order dated 20th February, 1985 was pleased to allow the appeal and passed a decree for eviction against the petitioner. The District Court held that the evidence of respondent No.2 shows that there are in all 10 members in his family and since he is admittedly in possession of only one room admeasuring 10 x 15 feet, the requirement cannot be said to be not bona fide and reasonable. As far as issue of hardship is concerned, the District Court observed that the petitioner is an old person and stays with his eldest son at Patan. His two sons are employed He did not make effort to search for alternative accommodation and therefore greater hardship would be caused to the respondents.