1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3766 OF 2008 Shri Ramdas Krishnarao Tulshibagwale ..... Petitioner. V/s Shri Gajanan Balkrishna Inamdar ...... Respondent. ---- Mrs. Sharvari S. Kanetkar i/b P.S. Dani for the Petitioner. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 26th June, 2008 P.C. 1. Petitioner is the original plaintiff/landlord and the respondent is the original defendant/tenant (parties shall be hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as "landlord" and "tenant"). 2. The landlord has filed a suit against the tenant for his eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 01/01/2002 and had, therefore, become a defaulter within the meaning of the said Act. The second ground was that the tenant had tried to sublet the premises and the third ground was that the landlord required the suit premises for business of his sister-in-law Mrs. Vrinda Uddhav Tulshibagwale. 2 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting. However, a decree was passed in favour of the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. 4. The tenant preferred an appeal in the District Court. The tenant brought on record a death certificate of the sister-in-law Mrs Vrinda Uddhav Tulshibagwale and contended that the reason for which the suit premises was required by the landlord did not exist. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and held that the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord was not established. The District Court further held that there was no specific averment in the plaint on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement and that no evidence also had been led by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the District Court, the petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the appellate court had erred in allowing the appeal filed by the tenant. She submitted that the appellate court had not taken into consideration the admission which was given by the tenant which itself clearly established the case of the plaintiff. She invited my attention to the findings recorded by the appellate court. 6. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The appellate court has noted that the pleadings of the plaintiff on this ground are vague 3 and no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to establish the said ground. The lower appellate court also considered the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the plaintiff and has, on the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the judgment on which reliance is placed by the plaintiff does not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, the appellate court has noted that certain premises were made available to the landlord and that he had not established or explained how the premises in his occupation was not suitable to Vrinda for her business of shares and securities. 7. It is also brought on record that the landlord has following shops in his possession:- (i) Shop No.1 admeasuring 192 Sq.feet in Shantideep Society is owned by respondent-plaintiff (ii) Shop Act license of the said shop is in the name of Vrinda Tulshibagwale. (iii) Shop premises vacated by tenant Raval is in possession of the respondent-plaintiff. (iv) On the ground floor of CTS No.1131, Budhwar Peth, Pune the respondent-plaintiff is running a shop in the name of Pune Sports & General Stores. The lower appellate court has also noted that the area of the shop in question was admeasuring 5.25' x 4.50'. Finally, the appellate court 4 also has noted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if decree for eviction is passed. 8. In my view, no case is made out by the petitioner/landlord for interfering with the findings recorded by the District Court. The record discloses that the landlord has sufficient area in his possession and, therefore, even otherwise, it cannot be said that the landlord reasonably and bonafidely requires the premises. Apart from that, it is an admitted position that Mrs. Vrinda Tulshibagwale expired during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the reason for which the premises were required, does not exist any longer. Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. V.M. KANADE, J.