cra13.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2011 Smt. Chandbi Ismail Shaikh & others .. APPLICANTS VERSUS Gani Hasan Momin .. RESPONDENT Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 17 th MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Petitioners are raising exception to the concurrent judgments passed by the courts below whereby the petitioners / original defendants were directed to vacate the suit premises. 2 Respondent / landlord presented suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 522/99 claiming possession of the residential premises on three grounds; viz. arrears in respect of payment of rent for a period between 1-1-1991 to 30-9-1999, secondly it is stated that the tenants have constructed latrine as cra13.11 2 well as a small room on the top floor for permanent user without consent of the landlord and, thirdly for his bonafide requirement. It is the contention of the respondent / landlord that he has retired from service and he wants to occupy the premises for his own use. 3 Trial court on consideration of evidence placed on record recorded finding that the landlord has established his bonafide personal requirement in respect of suit premises. The landlord has further established that the tenants have raised permanent construction without consent of the landlord. On these two grounds the learned trial Judge granted decree of eviction in favour of the landlord and against the tenants. The judgment and order passed by the trial court was subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Appeal no. 116/2007 which came to be heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge – 1, Sangamner, who was pleased to dismiss the same. 4 I have perused both the orders passed by the courts below. It is contended by Mr. Dixit, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the courts below have erred in recording finding that the tenants are responsible for raising permanent construction without consent of the landlord. It is stated that the latrine which was already in existence was cra13.11 3 reconstructed. The latrine which was being used by the tenants prior to its repair was in accordance with the old style which was renovated. Re- construction of the latrine for effective user of the premises in possession of the tenants cannot be construed to mean that the tenants are responsible for raising permanent construction without consent of the landlord which would be a ground for seeking decree of eviction under the Rent Act. It is also contended that raising of a small room covered with tins cannot be said to be a construction of permanent nature. I have perused the findings recorded in respect of the issue raised by the landlord alleging violation of the provisions of Rent Control Act in respect of raising of permanent construction without consent of the landlord. I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by both the courts below on appreciation of relevant facts and evidence are reasonable and proper and, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, there is n need to cause interference. 5 So far as the bonafide need for the suit premises is concerned, it is stated by the landlord that he was serving with the Bombay Municipal Corporation and on his retirement he wants to settle down at Sangamner and as such he needs the premises for his residence. The landlord has established the fact that he was in service with Bombay Municipal cra13.11 4 Corporation and got retired in the year 1996. It is contended by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that during the continuance of the proceeding, the landlord got possession of part of the suit premises after securing a decree of eviction against another tenant and the premises in possession of the landlord at present are sufficient for his personal use. I am of the view that the contention raised by the petitioners cannot be considered while dealing with the revision application. The landlord has come with a case that he needs the tenanted premises for his own use. It is for the landlord to choose which premises he shall occupy for his own use. It is not for the tenant to dictate as to which part of the house the landlord should keep in his possession and contend that it would be sufficient for his use. The landlord has established his bonafide need to occupy the tenanted premises, which is sufficient for claiming the decree of eviction against the tenants. Reliance is placed in the judgment in the matter of Sara Rauf and another vrs. Durgashankar Ganeshlal Shroff reported in 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 129 wherein it has been ruled that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord, how, and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him the residential standard cra13.11 5 of their own. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the benefits of his enjoyment of his property. Keeping in mind the settled position of law, no interference is called for in the instant matter. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. 6 Petitioners seek further time of one year to vacate the suit premises. However, considering the objection raised by the respondent / landlord and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to grant time till 31 st September, 2011 in favour of the tenants to vacate the suit premises. The tenants shall place on record written undertaking, within a period of 15 days from today, to the effect that he would handover vacant possession of the suit premises at the end of September 2011 and continue to pay rent and will keep the suit premises in habitable condition. In the event of failure to file undertaking as directed, it would be open for the landlord to seek execution of the decree of eviction. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb