1 CRA 371,388-390/2010 s. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.371/2010 Snehalata Achrekar & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Madhukar S.Navalkar & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.388/2010 Tulshiram B.Pawar ...Petitioner vs. Madhukar S.Navalkar & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 389/2010 Ravindra Kapatkar ...Petitioner vs. Madhukar S.Navalkar & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 390/2010 Anant S.Soilkar ...Petitioner vs. Madhukar S.Navalkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.A.Thorat for the petitioner Mr.K.L.Parab for Res.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 20, 2010 2 CRA 371,388-390/2010 P.C. 1. These Revision Applications are filed by the original defendants/ tenants challenging the decree passed in the suits filed by the first respondent under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for possession of the residential premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. Four separate suits were filed by the first respondent in respect of four separate premises in possession of Revision Applicants as tenants. The first respondent did not succeed before the Trial Court.The Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court has interfered in Appeal and has passed a decree on the ground of bona fide requirement. It is not in dispute that the suit premises subject matter of the suits, are the single rooms . The suit premises were requisitoned by the State Government and were allotted to its employees. The petitioners became statutory tenants being allottees of the Government. 3 CRA 371,388-390/2010 2. The first respondent is the co-owner of the building known as Navalkar Building who has filed the present suits. His father was stated to be the owner of the said building. The other legal representatives of the deceased father were impleaded in the suits as the defendants. It appears that in a pending suit , this Court has appointed a Court Receiver of the various property held by the deceased father of the first respondent. Accordingly the Court Receiver was impleaded as party to the suit .The four suits were filed by the first Respondent after obtaining permission of this Court. The requirement pleaded in the suits filed by the first respondent is that he has two sons, one of whom was recently married and the other son is of marriageable age. It was contended that the premises admeasuring 500 sq.ft. presently occupied by the first respondent is insufficient to meet the needs of the family. 4 CRA 371,388-390/2010 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants pointed out that the entire property is in the custody of the Court Receiver. He submitted that though the first respondent claims to be occupying only an area of 500 sq.ft. on the second floor of the building, there were other premises in possession of his co-owners. He pointed that one of the co-owners Bhalchandra occupied an area of 500 sq.ft. on the third floor and at present he was not occupying the said premises and has shifted to Mahim. He pointed out that even another co-owner was not residing in the said building. Learned counsel pointed out that it is brought on record that one of the sons of the first respondent has been allotted a flat by his employer at Vasant Vihar complex at Thane. He submitted that as the premises in the same building occupied by the co-owners of the first respondent are not being used by co-owners, the first respondent can apply the Court Receiver and occupy the said premises . He pointed out that even the premises of the sister of the first respondent in the same 5 CRA 371,388-390/2010 building is vacant. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the co-owners who are not occupying the premises in the building have refused to hand over the possession of the premises in their possession to the first respondent. He,therefore, submitted that the bonafide need is not actually established . 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The evidence on record discloses that the first respondent is occupying a premises admeasuring 500 sq.ft. in the said building. The argument of the revision applicants is that there are other premises occupied by the co-owners which are not in use. Merely because the said premises are in possession of the co-owners and that co- owners are not occupying the same, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the first respondent is entitled to use the same. The first respondent is not expected to proceed against his co-owners for securing the premises in their possession even assuming that the respective co-owners 6 CRA 371,388-390/2010 have shifted to some other accommodation. The fact remains that for several years the first respondent is in possession of a residential premises admeasuring 500 sq.ft.. What is brought on record is that the first respondent has two sons out of which one is married. It is brought on record that the employer of the married son has allotted a premises for the use of the son. Thus, the married son has not acquired any premises and he is occupying premises allotted by his employer. That will not eclipse or obliterate his need. It is the specific case of the first Respondent which is accepted by the Appellate Court is that his second is of marriageable age and the son is not yet married on account of paucity of accommodation. Thus, the requirement considered by the Appellate Court is of the first respondent, his wife, his married son ,daughter in law as well as the requirement which will be created in near future on account of marriage of his second son. Considering the social status of the first respondent , what is held by the appellate Court is that the family of the first 7 CRA 371,388-390/2010 respondent which consists of three units will require two bedrooms each, a sitting room and a kitchen. Even assuming that requirement considered by the appellate Court that every unit should have two separate bed rooms is ignored, considering the social status of the first respondent and the size of his family , a premises consisting of atleast 3 to 4 bed rooms , a sitting room and a kitchen room is needed by him .The existing accommodation is only of 500 sq.ft.. Therefore, requirement to occupy the four rooms subject matter of these Revision Applications has been accepted as a bona fide need. In the circumstances it is not possible to find fault with the finding recorded as regards establishment of bona fide need by the first respondent. It is not for a tenant to suggest that the landlord should approach his co- owners and seek possession of the premises in possession of the co-owners on the ground that the co-owners do not require the premises in their possession. The Appellate Court has held the issue of comparative hardship in favour 8 CRA 371,388-390/2010 of the first respondent on the ground that the Revision Applicants have not given particulars of the premises searched by them. 5. Hence the Civil Revision Applications are rejected . No order as to costs. On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Revision Applicants it is directed that decree for eviction shall not be executed for a period of three months from today. JUDGE 9 CRA 371,388-390/2010