RAMCHANDRA DAMODAR SOMAN Vs. PRABHAKAR YESHWANT TONPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the landlord. The landlord constructed a bungalow on the open plot and adjoining out-house or garage in the same compound. The out-house was let to the tenant for residence. The landlord thereafter filed suit claiming that possession should be restored on the ground of bonafide personal requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'as Rent Act'). The landlord also sought possession on the ground that conduct of the tenant amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The trial Court decreed that suit but that decree was set aside by Assistant Judge, Pune, by judgment dated September 3, 1981, and that judgment is under challenge.

(2.) SHRI Gokhale learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord, submitted that the lower Appellate Court was in error in reversing the decision of the trial Court. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. The requirement of the landlord is neither reasonable nor bonafide. The landlord claimed that on purchase of car the suit premises are required to park the car and this desire can by no stretch of imagination be treated as bonafide and reasonable requirement contemplated under Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act. It is now well settled that every desire of the landlord would not amount to bonafide and reasonable requirement and there should be some element of need in such requirement. The lower Appellate Court is right in concluding that the tenant cannot be evicted from his residence to enable the landlord to park his car. The finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity as far as the issue of requirement is concerned.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , petition fails and rule is discharged with costs. Petition dismissed.