CHANCHALABAI SHRIMAL BHOGAWAT Vs. MOHANLAL SHESHMAL DHARMAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-landlord owns the suit premises consisting of two rooms which was let out to the petitioner in the year 1978, at the monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. According to the respondent No. 1 the petitioner never paid any rent to him. He is a mental patient an is in possession of two rooms which are inadequate for his requirement. He gave a notice dated 16th June, 1979, to the petitioner which was received by him on 21st June, 1979. Since the notice was not complied with by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit claiming the possession of the two rooms as well as the arrears of rent. The petitioner contested the suit. According to her, she had paid advance rent of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1 which was to be adjusted towards the rent. The trial Court upheld the respondent's contention about his bonafide and reasonable requirements. The trial Court also found that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter and consequently decreed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed and hence the present petition.

(2.) SHRI Page fairly conceded the bonafide requirements of the respondent. However, according to him, the need of the respondent could have been met by giving him one room out of the two rooms in question. He has further contended relying on the decision reported in Bhaskar Digamber Choudhary v. Bhagwan Vishwanath Fadnis, 78 BLR page 454, that the Courts below have not examined the need of the respondent in the light of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. The Courts below have considered the question of hardship and a finding is recorded that a greater hardship would be caused to the respondent, if the suit was not decreed. The learned appellate Court has discussed this aspect in para 9 of the judgment. It has found that Chhaganlal has deposed on behalf of the respondent that he is a mental patient and that it is necessary that he should have peaceful atmosphere and peace of mind. If there is disturbance that may further aggravate his condition. The premises in occupation of respondent consist only of two rooms and there are about nine members in the family. The premises in question also consist only of two rooms which in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case must be made available to the respondent, as rightly found by the Courts below. Having regard to these facts, I think the Courts below were perfectly justified in decreeing the entire claim of the respondent. It is needless to say that the bonafide need as well as the question of hardship is a pure question of fact and the two Courts below have concurrently found that in favour of the respondent.

(3.) THE petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.