LAWS(PVC)-1920-2-128

B D PUDUMJI Vs. SIR DINSHAW MANEKJI PETIT

Decided On February 25, 1920
B D PUDUMJI Appellant
V/S
SIR DINSHAW MANEKJI PETIT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant praying that the defendant might be ordered to vacate and give up possession of certain premises in his occupation to the plaintiff. The defendant is a monthly tenant of certain premises in a house belonging to the plaintiff on Hornby Road.

(2.) The defendant has pleaded the Rent Act, and denies that the premises in suit are reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff for demolishing the same and for erecting a new building.

(3.) Now, admittedly the house in which the defendant is a tenant together with the adjoining house is very old. The rooms are dark and badly ventilated; and certainly it would tend to the improvement of the premises and for the better conditions of the tenants who would occupy the new premises, that the present house should be pulled down and a new house built on the site with all modern conveniences. 1 cannot see, therefore, that there was anything unreasonable in the plaintiff s conduct in wishing to get the tenants of the present house to vacate in order that proper improvements might be made. It was never intended as far as I can see, by the Bombay Rent Act that the improvement of old, ill-erected, badly ventilated premises should be entirely stopped until the Rent Act is repealed. All that the Courts have to do in construing Section 9 of the Bombay Rent Act is to see that the landlord is acting reasonably. If it was found that the owner of a perfectly new building built, just before the Rent Act came into operation, wanted to pull Down that building and build another one, it is quite possible that in these circumstances the Court would think that the landlord was quite unreasonable. In this case we have none of those circumstances, We have two houses which it is certainly desirable should be replaced by modern houses. Therefore, if this house was the only house that was mentioned in the case, it seems to me that the plaintiff is entitled to get the defendant to vacate.