BISMILLA BEE Vs. MOHD ANWAR MOHD AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is preferred by the original respondentstenants against whom a decree for eviction from the suit premises has been passed by VII Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad on 30.12.2002 in Rent Suit No.22/2001, on the ground of bonafide requirement and same is maintained in Rent appeal no.2/2003, dismissed by the District Judge at Aurangabad, by his judgment and order dated 03.10.2005.

(2.) The facts leading to this case are as under:The respondent is landlord, filed Rent Suit No.24/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad against the applicanttenant, for eviction on the grounds of willful default, demolition of the premises and bonafide requirement. In this revision, we are concerned only with the ground of bonafide requirement and in respect of that the landlord pleaded in the suit that the defendants are the tenants in the house, which consists of two rooms with toilet unit. It was pleaded that the respondentlandlord has five sons and two daughters and the house, which is in his possession, is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family. The mother of the landlord is also residing with him, and he therefore requires the premises in occupation of the tenant, for his bonafide requirement of residence. The applicantstenants filed their written statement and denied that the landlord has five sons, two daughters and that his mother is also residing with him, as alleged. The applicantstenants also denied that the landlord required the premises for his bonafide use i.e. for his residence purpose.

(3.) The respondentlandlord filed his affidavit by way of evidence in support of his claim and stated that he has five sons and two daughters, and the house in his possession, is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family. He also stated that his old mother is also residing with him and the area in his occupation, which is having three rooms, is not sufficient to accommodate the entire family of 10 persons, and, therefore, his need is bonafide and genuine. He was cross examined on the aspect of total members of his family, and he stated that he has five sons and two daughters and was prepared to place on record the documentary evidence to that effect. The petitioner no.2 examined himself in support of his defence and stated in his evidence that the plaintifflandlord is in possession of another house, which is owned by him and the house in his possession is sufficient for accommodation of his entire family. He stated that the need putforth by the landlord is not bonafide. He has further stated that the petitioner no.1 is his old mother and he is a labourer earning Rs.400/to Rs.500/per month and he has no alternative accommodation to shift. He has further stated that he is in occupation of two rooms, open space, latrine and bathroom and is occupying the same since last 50 years.