SUDHA YESHVANT KHEDEKAR Vs. JANAKIBAI RAMCHANDRA REDIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 2 is residing at Bombay but owns Municipal House No. 1249 situated at Ratnagiri. Petitioner No. 1 is the niece of petitioner No. 2 and it is claimed that petitioner No. 2 brought her up in life. Petitioner No. 1 is married and has three daughters. Husband of petitioner No. 1 is employed and is transferred to different places all over India. The house property at Ratnagiri is in occupation of respondent No. 1 as tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. It is the claim of petitioners that petitioner No. 2 desired to sell the property to the tenant but the tenant declined to accept the offer. Petitioner No. 2 executed registered gift deed dated January 6, 1969 and gifted the property to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter served notice dated September 20, 1971 on the tenant and demanded recovery of possession for personal occupation.

(2.) THE petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Ratnagiri demanding possession under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act"). The requirement made out by the petitioner was that the petitioner No. 1 is desirous of educating her daughters at Ratnagiri in Marathi medium. The three daughters of petitioner No. 1 were born in 1963, 1967 and 1969. Petitioner No. 1 claimed that as her husband is transferred from State to State it is not possible to train daughters in Marathi medium and therefore petitioner No. 1 is desirous of settling at Ratnagiri for purpose of education of her daughters. The tenant denied that the requirement is either bonafide or reasonable and the trial Judge after recording evidence rejected the defence and decreed the suit. The decree passed by the trial Judge is reversed in appeal preferred by the tenant to District Court, Ratnagiri. The decision of the Assistant Judge, Ratnagiri delivered on October 6, 1980 is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN spite of this defect in the decision of the Assistant Judge, the conclusion recorded that the landlady failed to establish that the requirement was bonafide and reasonable deserves to be upheld. The evidence on record clearly indicates that petitioner No. 2 has property in Bombay and she is residing in Bombay along with petitioner No. 1. The requirement made out by petitioner No. 1 was to educate her daughters in Marathi medium at Ratnagiri. The evidence clearly establishes that in the year 1971, that is prior to filing of the suit, petitioner No. 1 secured rented accommodation at Ratnagiri and her eldest daughter was entered into Convent school at Ratnagiri where the medium is English. The eldest daughter of petitioner No. 1 continued to stay at Ratnagiri till the year 1975 and thereafter left for Bombay. The two remaining daughters never went to Ratnagiri. In these circumstances no fault can be found with the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court that the requirement can by no stretch of imagination be described as reasonable. In my opinion, the finding recorded by lower Appellate Court on the issue of requirement is not required to be disturbed and the petition must fail.