dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4313 OF 1990 PETITION NO.4313 OF 1990 PETITION NO.4313 OF 1990 Smt.Rabia Rasul Shaikh, since deceased, through legal heirs: 1. Salim Rasool Shaikh, aged 40 years, residing at Ramdoh Ali, Wai, Dist: Satara. 2. Ismail Rasool Shaikh, aged 46 years, residing at Lonand, Bajar, Tal. Khandala, Dist.Satara. ...Petitioners (Orig. Defts.) Vs. Shri Ramchandra Shankar Shende, since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives: (1) Smt.Indirabai Ranmchandra Shende, widow, residing at Ramdoh Ali, Wai, District Satara. (2) Shri Anant Ramchandra Shende, son, age 45, Trader, R/o.Khandala, Taluka Khandala, Dist.Satara. (3) Ranga Ramchandra Shende, son, Trader R/o. Brahma-shahi, Wai, Dist.Satara. (4) Sou. Usha Raghunathrao Chandras, daughter, R/o. Ramdoh Ali, Wai, District Satara. (Amendment made as per court’s order dated 4th July,2000 in Civil Application No.6298/1999.) 5. Smt.Shobha Arun Shende, residing at 1192, Ramodh Ali Wai, Taluka: Wai, District: Satara. 6. Sachin Arun Shende, minor by his guardian Smt.Shobha Arun Shende, 7. Amol Arun Shende, minor, by his ( 2 ) guardian Smt.Shobha Arun Shende, Both residing at 1192, Ramdoh Ali Wai, District: Satara. Amendment to be carried as per court’s order dated 25.7.2005 in C.A.No.1833 of 2002. ...Respondents. (Orig.Plaintiffs) Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b.Mr.G.H.Keluskar for the Petitioners. Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade i/b.Mr.A.V.Anturkar for the Respondents 1 & 4 and 5 to 7. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATE DATE DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 1st October 2008 OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 1st October 2008 OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 1st October 2008 DATE DATE DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 18th October, 2008. OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 18th October, 2008. OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 18th October, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant against whom in a Suit filed by the original landlord now are the legal heirs Suit under the Bombay Rent Act for possession on the ground of bonafide need has been confirmed/decreed by both the Courts below. 2. After considering the material and rival contentions as raised the trial Court held that the landlord/respondent proved his case of bonafide requirement for his personal and for his family use and occupation of the suit premises and, therefore, decreed the suit for possession, after considering that more hardship will be caused to the landlord/plaintiff if ( 3 ) decree is refused. The Court has also ordered decree of mesne profits as per Order XX Rule 12 (1)(c) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for arrears of rent after March 1981. The requirement of original plaintiff now deceased, as recorded is inclusive of need of his sons i.e. Ranga, Arun and Anant and their children. Ranga was living in the rented premises. The landlord is the best person to judge and decide his and his family member’s need. Though three sons, at the relevant time, were living separately from the respondent/plaintiff and doing their respective business, the tenancy was terminated accordingly by notice dated 22.04.1981 and thereafter the present Suit was filed. The necessity to have own premises for the residential purpose of his family members and in the present case mainly his son Ranga and his children. 3. There is material on record as observed by the courts below that Ranga and Arun were living separately in a rented premises. Therefore, the purchase of one premises by one of the son independently that itself cannot be the reason to discard the bonafide need of the landlord. The need of big family just cannot be overlooked. ( 4 ) 4. The Appellate court has also reconsidered the aspects and confirmed the requirements of the landlord/respondent even after considering the point of greater hardship. 5. In the present case while admitting the writ petition this Court has granted the order of status-quo, in the result, the petitioners are in occupation till this date. The respondent’s heirs resisted the same by its return dated 29.11.1990 and supported the case of existence of their requirement, though there is a purchase of some property. 6. The petitioners, however, filed an application to bring on record subsequent events which according to them goes to the root of the matter in defence in so far as the present bonafide requirement of the respondent/landlord. This application is also placed for hearing. The averments made in the application including of additional affidavit dated 14.06.2007 demonstrate and which remained uncontroverted that Ranga and Arun both have acquired some property which are sufficient to cover their respective needs. 7. As noted, the respondent/landlord’s application is ( 5 ) for his two sons and their children. The findings are also revolve accordingly around their need. In the subsequent developments which, in my view also in the present facts and circumstances of the case, necessary to shorten the litigation as well as in the interest of complete justice between the parties, it is appropriate that, after taking note of these events, to quash and set aside both the orders dated 22.08.1986 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Wai in Regular Civil Suit No.163/1981 and confirmed by the District Judge, Satara by its decree dated 20.08.1990 passed in Civil Appeal No.482/1982 and remit the matter before the trial Court for reconsidering all aspects including the bonafide need of the legal heirs of the respondents as well as the case of the legal heirs of the petitioner/original landlord. 8. As the matter is very old, it is desirable that the learned trial Court to dispose of the Suit by giving full opportunity to both the parties preferably within six months from today. 9. As this court has already granted status-quo, the same should be continued till the decision of the Suit. ( 6 ) 10. In the result, the petition is allowed to the above extent. Both the orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for decision in accordance with law by giving full opportunity to both the parties preferably within six months from today. The interim protection of possession as granted by this court shall continue till the decision of the Suit. 11. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)