RAMCHANDRA GANGARAM Vs. VASANT NARAYANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.6.1986 passed by the VIIth Addl.District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.546/1984. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.9.1983 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.180/78. That Civil Suit was also filed by the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the suit premises, which consists of two rooms - one room on the front side and other room on the rear side of the building. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the landlord needs the suit premises for his own bonafide occupation and also on the ground that the tenant is defaulter in payment of rent. The trial Court found against the landlord on both the grounds and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the landlord gave up the ground for possession of the room which is used by the tenant for residence. The landlord pressed his suit only for the room on the front side of the building, admeasuring 15' x 15', which is being used by the tenant for his tailoring business. It was the case of the landlord that he is barber by profession and he was doing his business by visiting the customers at their house and now because of his advanced age it is difficult for him to visit the customers and that the tradition to visit houses of the customers is also dying and as now the people are reluctant to call barbers at their homes, as they are getting necessary facilities in Saloon, it is not possible for the petitioner to continue his business by going from street and therefore, he needs the front room for starting his own business. The appellate Court found in favour of the landlord on the ground of bonafide need. However, on the aspect of comparative hardship, the appellate court found that though the landlord has established his need for setting up his business in the front room, considering the situation of the tenant, who will suffer greater hardship if possession of the entire room is delivered by the tenant to the landlord. The appellate Court, therefore, passed a decree for eviction of the tenant from 1/2 portion of the room so that both the landlord and tenant can have their business there.

(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the order of the appellate Court directing the eviction of the tenant only from 1/2 portion of the front room is based on the appreciation of the evidence on the record. I do not find any manifest or apparent error of law in the finding recorded by the appellate court. Therefore, in my opinion, this is not a fit case where this court can interfere with it in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.