HARILAL TULSIBHAI GOHIL Vs. ABDUL HABIB ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present respondent -plaintiff issued notice dated 23-9-1986 to the petitioner about termination of tenancy and subsequently Regular Civil Suit No. 184 of 1986 came to be filed before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar. Issues were framed including the issues regarding default in payment of rent, bona tide requirement of suit premises and the defendant having acquired any premises. The suit premises consists of area 14x35 ft. in a building on C. T. S. No. 1071 and the said building consisted of two storeys. The present petitioner acquired the premises on the ground-floor on rent basis. It has come on record that the suit premises were being used for residential as well as commercial purpose. The learned trial Judge answered the relevant issues against the present petitioner and in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1996 the findings recorded by the trial Court have been confirmed. During the pendency of the suit before the tria) Qourt the building caught fire and as on today the first floor of the building is totally demolished. The petitioner contends that he is able to carry out his business from the premises located on the ground floor.

(2.) BOTH the courts below have examined at length the issue regarding reasonable and bona fide requirements of the suit premises by respondent who is school teacher working at some other place and his grown up children are staying at Nandurbar with some relations for their studies. So far as the alternative accommodation is concerned, the Court below has recorded a finding that the petitioner-defendant purchased the premises bearing C. T. S. No. 2279 in the name of his wife in the year 1986 and subsequently in April 1995 he has purchased the premises in the names of his sons (bearing C. T. S. Nos. 107 and 117 ). It is further important to note that during the pendency of the suit, the premises have been converted into business premises in the name of "bombay Cusions" on 13-1-1988 and the renewal licence was also issued in the year 1996.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the premises are being used for composite purpose, the provisions of section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rents,. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 are not applicable. In this regard he has relied on the judgment of this Court (Division Bench) in the case of (Bhavarlal Sukhial Soni by L. Rs. v. Lakshminarayan Deo Public Trusf) 1994 Mh. L. J. 843. This Court has held that section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act applies only to the premises let out for residence, the object being to make available to landlords all residential premises really not needed by the tenants due to building acquiring or being allotted a "suitable residence". This judgment does not lay down the law that the provisions of section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act are not applicable to the premises which is for composite use. The Supreme Court in the case of (Miss. Kanta Udharam Jagasia v. Shri C. K. S. Rao) reported in J. T. 1997 (9) S. C. 556 held that where eviction was ordered on account of bona fide need of landlord. Revisional Court may not interfere with findings of lower Courts and High Court would not be justified in reversing the findings of the competent authority unless such findings are perverse. On reading the impugned judgments it is clear that the findings recorded do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgments, directing eviction under sections 12 (3) (a), 13 (1) (g) and 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act.