1 cra199.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2010 Madhukar Shankar Patekar ...Applicant vs. Suryakant Dhondiba Patange & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Surel Shah for the applicant Mr.Nitin Mulye for the respondent nos.1 to 4 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the defendant-tenant and the respondents are the landlords-plaintiffs. A room (suit premises) was let out by the respondents to the applicant in the property owned by the respondents for residential use. A suit for possession was filed by the respondents against the applicant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The bona fide requirement pleaded is that from time to time the respondents have been residing in the different rented premises. It is contended that at present the respondents were occupying the premises consisting of two rooms along with small balcony and toilet block. It is stated that the family of the respondent no.1 consists of he himself, his mother, two daughters and a son. The suit was contested by the applicant by filing a written statement. Both the Courts below have held that the bona fide need was established by the respondents. The issue of comparative hardship has been answered against the applicant by both the Courts below. 2 cra199.sxw 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Appellate Court has not framed proper points for determination. He submitted that there is no discussion on the issue of bona fide need pleaded by the respondents and there is no clear finding recorded on the issue of bona fide need. He submitted that the Appellate Court has considered only the issue of comparative hardship. He submitted that the Appellate Court has committed a gross error by not considering the issue of bona fide need and there is no specific finding recorded on the issue of bona fide need. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned Judgments and Decrees by pointing out that there is a discussion on the ground of bona fide need pleaded by the respondents in the Judgment of the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has recorded a general agreement with the detailed findings recorded by the Trial Court. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is true that the points for determination could have been worded in a better fashion by the Appellate court. I find that in paragraph 4 of the Judgment, the Appellate Court has made a reference to the evidence adduced by the respondents. The Appellate Court has noted that the first respondent deposed that he was residing in a rented premises from time to time and now his children are grown up. In paragraph 5 of the Judgment, the Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the first respondent has occupied different tenanted premises from time to time in various parts of the Solapur city and that as a owner he was now claiming the suit premises for residential purpose. In fact, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant recorded by the Appellate Court in paragraph 5 reads thus: 3 cra199.sxw 5...The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Rajput vociferously argued during the course of arguments that he could get accommodation one after the other in four different places, it goes to show that he could even get 5th place for residential purpose and therefore their is no need to disturb this Defendant who is poor person. 4 Thus, even the applicant admitted that from time to time the first respondent has acquired different tenanted premises in the city of Solapur and he is residing in the tenanted premises. In the same paragraph, the Appellate Court has observed thus : 5...It would not be a proper legal proposition to expect the owner to stay in rented premises and for the tenant to come out with the argument that when he could manage 4 houses, he could very well manage 5th one and continue to reside in tenanted premises. The owner has every right to claim tenanted premises for his own personal use... 5 Even in paragraph 6 of the Judgment, the Appellate Court has held that as the respondents are residing in the rented premises, their bona fide requirement will have to be accepted. 6 What is brought on record before the trial Court is that the family of the first respondent consists of he himself, his wife, his mother and three grown up children. The family is residing in the rented premises consisting of two rooms. The applicant is in possession 4 cra199.sxw of suit premises consisting of only one room. Even the said one room is not sufficient for meeting the need of the family of the first respondent. Perusal of the finding of the Appellate Court shows that there is a consideration of bona fide need pleaded by the respondent and there are specific findings recorded. 7 As far as comparative hardship is concerned, criticism of the learned counsel for the applicant was that only on the ground that he has not searched any other accommodation, the finding of comparative hardship has been recorded against the applicant. However, perusal of the Judgments and decree of the Courts below show that it was found that the applicant was holding some agricultural lands in the nearby area. Another aspect considered is that the landlords are continuously residing in the rented premises. 8 No case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Revision application is rejected. 9 On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today. JUDGE