NARAYAN DAWAL PATIL Vs. MOHAMMAD ASGAR MOHAMAD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-tenant is challenging legality of the judgment dated September 21, 1983 delivered by Assistant Judge, Nasik reversing judgment and decree dated March 9, 1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition are as follows :

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of an area admeasuring 15' x 36' on the ground floor of House No. 234 situated in Mangalwar Peth, Malegaon, District Nasik. An identical area of 15' x 36' is occupied by the landlord on the first floor. The ground floor was let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The ground floor was divided into two parts by the tenant, and in the front portion an electrical shop is being conducted and on the rear the tenant is residing with his family. The landlord terminated the tenancy and instituted Civil Suit No. 364 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Melegaon for recovery of possession on the ground of bonafide personal requirement as prescribed under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. The landlord claimed that there are 13 members in his family, including his wife, grand-mother, two daughters, two daughters-in-law and six sons. The landlord claimed that the accommodation available to the landlord is extremely inadequate and it is not possible for the large family of 13 members to reasonably reside in the premises. The landlord also claimed that the marriages of his children are required to be postponed for want of accommodation.

(3.) THE landlord carried appeal before the Assistant Judge, Nasik and the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. The lower appellate Court found that the alleged construction by the landlord admeasures only 12' x 15' and was a temporary arrangement as the area was built with Wooden boards and even that is not enough to accommodate the landlord's family. The lower Appellate Court held that the issue of comparative hardship is required to be determined in favour of the landlord because the tenant had made no attempt to secure alternate accommodation though the suit remained pending for several years. In accordance with his finding the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit for possession and that decree is under challenge in the petition.