1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2008 Smt.Chandrabhaga N. Thopte .. Petitioner Versus Ratnabai S. Pansare and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Hemant Ghadigaonkar for respondents Mr.D.N.Chandrachud for applicant/petitioner CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12th June 2009. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Chandrachud for petitioners who are original defendants and Mr.Ghadigaonkar for respondents. Petitioners are the original tenants who are aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the order of the lower appellate court decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondents and reversing the judgement of the trial court dismissing the suit. 2] One of the grounds on which the suit was laid was under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, applicability of which is not in dispute. The court below, according to Mr.Chandrachud failed to appreciate that there is a difference between mere “Desire and Wish” to possess the premises and the “Need and Requirement” of the landlord. The words “Reasonable and Bonafide” requirement are complimentary terms which support each other. There is something more when it comes to need and that element is absent when there is mere desire or 2 wish. Ultimately, Rent Control Legislation is not to permit unnecessary and uncalled for eviction of tenants from the premises in their occupation. It is only when the landlord establishes genuineness of the requirement that the premises must be handed over to him. He submits that in the instant case the trial court dismissed the suit of the landlady not only because the landlady failed to prove her need and requirement but also because there was suppression of material fact. Firstly, the landlady’s daughter was married during the pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, a third room became vacant and was in possession of the landlady but which fact was not brought to the notice of the Court below. Hence, the suit was dismissed by holding that the requirement was not bonafide. That finding has been reversed by the lower appellate court without considering the element of necessity and reasonableness. In such circumstances, the order under challenge requires to be set aside. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (8) S.C.C. 718. (Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah and Ors) 3] On the other hand, it is contended by the Counsel for respondents – original plaintiffs that in the present suit, the plaintiff No.2, son of the landlady has deposed that he is the only earning member in the family. He is driving a Auto-rickshaw for livelihood. There are no other premises available for residence. Whereas the defendants have their alternate arrangement and premises. It is stated that the daughter may have been married during the pendency of the proceedings but the son requires the premises considering his marriageable age. The size of the premises being such, it cannot be said that the requirement lacks element of bonafide and reasonableness. For all these reasons the finding of fact should not be interfered with 3 and the petition be dismissed. 4] I have perused the petition and the annexures thereto including the orders under challenge. In the suit instituted by the landlady, the possession of the premises admeasuring 70 sft. has been sought. It was stated that the landlady has one room admeasuring 70 sft. On ground floor and one room on first floor. The room on the first floor is in dilapidated condition and not fit for the purpose of residence of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.2 was 29 years at that time and his marriage was to be performed. Due to insufficient accommodation the landlady was unable to perform his marriage. Although in the plaint requirement of the unmarried daughter was also pleaded, the fact remains that she is married. 5] In the written statement of the defendant, the allegation with regard to alternate premises is denied and it is contended that the defendant No.1 is a widow and her unmarried daughter are the only persons residing in the suit premises. Considering the fact that the landlady has three rooms for her use and occupation and that her daughter has already married, the suit premises should not be directed to be handed over. That is how the arguments proceeded before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court, while discussing point Nos. 1 and 2 held that plaintiff No.1 entered the witness box. The defendants also entered witness box and examined other witnesses. The version of the plaintiff is that they are in possession of one room on ground floor and one room on first floor admeasuring 80 sft. First floor room is dilapidated and not fit for residence. The accommodation is insufficient. Plaintiff No. 2 is the only earning member and, therefore, for his marriage and considering the need 4 of his family in future, it is not unreasonable that he expects that he has sufficient premises to accommodate himself and his family so also his aged mother. The lower appellate court while discussing this aspect has adverted to the entire factual material so also depositions on record. The principles that have been applied by the appellate court are inconsonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court as far as reasonable and bonafide requirements of the landlady/landlord. 6] While the Tests already laid down have been emphasised in the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr.Chandrachud, yet, the applicability of the same to the facts of a particular case is something which must be borne in mind. It appears from a perusal of the Supreme Court decision that the landlady’s appeals have been dismissed. The Supreme Court has held that in para 7 that the High Court on appreciation of evidence found that the landlady had no bonafide and reasonable requirement. The case was not even such in which partial eviction could have been ordered. It was proved that greater hardship would be caused to the tenants who were all poor people. It is in that context in para 8 the observations relied upon by Mr.Chandrachud have been made. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the court must satisfy itself with regard to the requirement of landlady. The court is obliged to look into this aspect and apply its mind independently, considering the object of the Rent Control Legislation. However, what I find in the instant case is that the landlady has proved both elements that have been emphasised by the Supreme Court and Mr.Chandrachud before me. This is not a case where the landlady filed the suit for eviction on the grounds which are untenable or have not been proved. She has brought on record that the rooms are scattered and one of the rooms is dilapidated. It 5 has also been brought on record that though her daughter may have been married, her son is of marriageable age and would require independent room. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the need of the landlady and her marriageable son is unreasonable and not bonafide. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision application and it fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7] However, at the request of the petitioners, the decree for possession shall not be executed and enforced till 30th June 2011. Petitioners should file undertaking in this court within fifteen days to the effect that they will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the landlady on or before 30th June 2011. They will not create any third party interests in the property nor alienate, encumber or part with possession thereof to any third party. In default, the decree shall become executable and enforceable without reference to the court. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)