MANILAL CHUNILAL SHAH Vs. SHANTILAL RUPCHAND GOLECHA MARWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-landlord has brought in question the judgment and order dated 15. 2. 1982 by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 366/80. The facts in brief are stated as under :-

(2.) THE landlord by way of an oral lease gave the suit premises on rent to the defendant and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 16/ -. The suit premises is a shop located on the ground floor of building bearing C. T. S. No. 1189 to 1194 at Kopargaon. It is contented by the landlord that the suit premises were given on rent for the purpose of carrying on business of running a grocery shop. It appears that some times in 1972 or so the defendant was allotted another shop (Gala No. 3) in the shopping complex constructed by the Municipal Council, just opposite the suit premises and he obtained a licence to carry out business of running a grocery shop in the new premises. The landlord instituted R. C. S. No. 756/75 seeking the eviction of the tenant on the grounds that :

(3.) THE tenant therefore, challenged the said decree in Regular Appeal No. 366/80 and the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal partly by setting aside the eviction decree. The lower Appellate Court held that provisions of section 13 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act for short) were not applicable to the business premises and these provisions were applicable only to the residential premises. The lower Appellate Court proceeded on the presumption that there was no case made out for eviction under section 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act and the case was made out for eviction on the grounds under section 108 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act, inasmuch as the suit premises were not being used for the purpose they were taken on rent. On the issue of bona fide requirement the lower Appellate Court negatived the contentions of the plaintiff.