hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 676 OF 2011 Shankar Ganpat Dhavale and Ors. ... Applicants Versus Digambar Jain Boarding Kolhapur and Anr ... Respondents Mr. P.D. Dalvi, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Surel Shah for respondent no. 1. CORAM : A.S. OKA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2011 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the first respondents. 2. The first respondent filed suit for eviction under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Said Act”) on the ground that the suit premises was needed for a project of the first respondent - public trust. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the first respondent trust. Initially an open land was let out to the 1 hvn predecessor of the applicants on which a shed was constructed. In the plaint which was filed initially, requirement pleaded was that the first respondent intended to construct a building for the purpose of godown. Latter on the plaint was amended for contending that the suit property was required for construction of a hostel for the students. It was alleged in the plaint that the first respondent is a public charitable trust which is formed with the object of imparting education to the urban and rural students. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In the appeal preferred by respondent, the suit was partly decreed. A decree for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement was passed. 3. The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the suit was not filed by the trustees of the charitable trust but the trust itself is shown as the plaintiff. He submitted that clause (g) of sub section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, contemplates that in such case, the suit has to be filed by the trustees. His submission is that the Secretary of the first respondent who had no personal knowledge, purported to file the suit without producing on record any authority of the trustees to institute the suit. He submits that the original requirement 2 hvn pleaded in the plaint was given up and the new requirement was pleaded of construction of a hostel for the students. He submits that there were other premises of the first respondent trust let out to various tenants and suits were not filed against any of the other tenants. He submits that the area of the suit premises is about 53 ft x 40 ft. which is not sufficient for construction of the hostel. He submits that the burden is wrongly cast on the applicants to prove that the requirement pleaded by the first respondent was not bona fide. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. There does not seem to be any dispute that the first respondent is a trust. Perusal of the written statement shows that no contention was raised regarding the failure of the first respondent to implead its trustees as the plaintiffs. Perusal of the cross examination of the witnesses examined by first respondent made by the advocate for the applicants shows that there was no challenge on this aspect. In fact there was also no challenge on the ground that the Secretary of the first respondent who had signed the plaint had no authority to sign or institute the plaint. The objection regarding this aspect is raised for the first time at the time of hearing for admission of this Civil Revision application. Apart from the fact that at 3 hvn such a belated stage, this objection cannot be raised, it is not possible to accept the contention of the applicants that clause (g) of sub section 1 of section 13 itself incorporates a requirement that only the trustees can file a suit on the ground of bona fide requirement. Clause (g) covers a contingency where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust. 5. As the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is rejected, the other contentions will have to be considered. It must be noted that in the plaint as well as in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness examined by the first respondent, he has stated that the first respondent has been registered as a trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the same has been established with the object of imparting education to the students in rural as well as urban area. The specific plea is that adequate hostel facility is not available to the students and especially the medical and engineering students. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the bona fide requirement pleaded by the first respondent of construction of a hostel for the students. As far as area of the suit premises is concerned, it is not for the tenant to dictate in what manner the landlord should use his property and as far as the requirement is concerned, the landlord is the 4 hvn sole judge. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court shows that a reference has been made to the submission that there is a four storied building owned by the first respondent which is in possession of various tenants. Merely because first respondent has not proceeded against the other tenants, it will not effect the bona fide need pleaded by the first respondent. As regards the last submission regarding the burden of proof, it must be noted that Appellate Court has scanned the evidence of the first respondent and has recorded a finding on the existence of bona fide need. 6. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Revision application is rejected. There will be no orders as to costs. 7. On the request made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for the period of three months from today subject to the condition that the applicants shall not create any third party rights and shall not part with the possession of the suit premises. (A.S. OKA,J.) 5