GURULINGAPPA SHARNAPPA BIRAJDAR Vs. SIDRAMAPPA GANPATRAO MULGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the VI Addl. District Judge, Sholapur dated decembers, 1991 dismissing the appeal against the decree of possession ordered by the II Joint civil Judge, J. D. , Sholapur dated October 9, 1987 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1060 of 1982 against the tenant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the suit premises is a shop premises in Municipal House No. 882, city Survey No. 3015, West Mangalwar Peth, solapur. The Respondent/landlord instituted suit for possession of the suit premises on the assertion that he was assisting his father in the business conducted in the shop premises, which were taken on rental basis by his father. However, the landlord of those premises has already instituted suit for possession of the suit premises. Apprehending that the possession of the tenanted premises will be lost by his father, the Plaintiff/landlord wanted the suit premises occupied by the defendant/tenant for his personal use for business urgently. Besides asserting this position in the plaint, the Plaintiff entered the witness box and restated the requirements being bonafide and reasonable one. The Trial Court on appreciating the documentary and oral evidence accepted the plea of the Plaintiff that his requirement of suit premises was bonafide and reasonable. The trial Court then examined the issue of comparative hardship and answered the same against the tenant. Consistent with the said finding, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered the Defendant/tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises within three months from the date of the judgment. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence on record has confirmed the finding of fact reached by the trial Court on relevant issues and therefore, dismissed the Appeal. Against this concurrent finding of fact reached by the two Courts below present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) THE first argument of the petitioners is that the Plaintiff purchased the suit property on 4th June, 1982 with full knowledge that the tenant was occupying the suit premises and soon thereafter proceeded to file the suit for possession on the ground of bonafide requirement in November, 1982. The argument is that the background in which the present suit has been filed clearly demonstrates that the requirement of the Plaintiff/landlord was neither bonafide nor reasonable. It was argued that the landlord ought to have waited for atleast three years from the date of purchase before instituting suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement. This argument is devoid of merit. There is no express provision in the rent Act which precludes the landlord from instituting suit for possession on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement soon after he purchases the suit property. That by itself cannot be the basis to non-suit the landlord. This legal position is no more res integra. We can usefully refer to the decision of our High court in the case of Indubai Govind Lad and ors. Vs. Smt. Anjelinabai Jitendra Kumar bafna reported in 2004 Bom. C. R. 596 (para 5 thereof), which has examined the effect of amendment of Bombay Act 61 of 1953 to answer the point in issue. The Court is obliged to consider the question as to whether the requirement is bonafide and reasonable, uninfluenced by that fact. Indeed, the Petitioners may be justified in contending that the landlord had full knowledge of the fact that the suit premises were already occupied by the tenant when the property was purchased by him. It may appear as if the landlord purchased the property to speculate. However, in the present case, two Courts below have analysed the evidence of the Plaintiff and have accepted the plea of the Plaintiff that it was not possible for him to get any other property in the locality except the house property (in which the suit premises were situated), in vacant condition or free for occupation. It is in this background, the Court below tested the argument of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the Plaintiffs and have found that merely because the landlord purchased the suit property inspite of full knowledge that it was already occupied by the tenant does not militate against the landlord in the fact situation of the present case. That is a finding of fact reached by the two Courts below, which needs no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction being a possible view and consistent with the evidence on record.