IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 510 OF 2008 Sayed Sayeed Shah ...... ...... ...... Applicant V/s Jeru Russi Jeejebhoy...... ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.A.K.Abhyankar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Rajesh Patil, Adv. For the applicant. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.Birendra Saraf i/by Mr.P.J.Das, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 11th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: This is the tenant' s revision challenging eviction decree passed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the premises consisting of northern side wing of bungalow No.4, situated at Phayre Road consisting of three rooms, 2 bathrooms and kitcheette on ground floor, total area admeasuring about 850 sq.ft. (hereinafter called the “suit premises”). The respondent-landlady filed a suit bearing No.542/01 in Small Causes Court at Pune for decree of vacant possession under the provisions of sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act against the applicant-tenant. The trial Court after hearing parties passed eviction decree on the ground of nuisance and annoyance and that the respondent-plaintiff needs the suit premises reasonable and bonafide 1 for her use. The applicant-tenant challenged the trial Court' s decree before the District Court, Pune. The learned District Judge-2, Pune by the impugned judgment and order set aside the decree of the trial Court as far as eviction on the ground of nuisance and annoyance is concerned. However he confirmed the trial Court's decree on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the respondent- landlady. The issue of comparative hardship was also answered in favour of the respondent-landlady. 2. The applicant was inducted as monthly tenant by the respondent' s grand father in the suit premises at monthly rent of Rs.200 + education cess. After the death of grand father the property bungalow No.4, Phayre Road, including suit premises was inherited by the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that she and her family members require the suit premises for their own use and occupation as they have shifted their residence to Pune. They required to shift permanently to Pune in aforesaid bungalow No.4 as respondent' s mother has undergone major operation and she is suffering from major illness and is taking medical treatment and she has been asked by her doctor to shift to Pune on account of her health as the climate at Pune is more suitable to her compared to Mumbai. It is also contended that the respondent' s father after shifting the residence to Pune has started business and engaged in business of manufacturing and sell of Air conditioners and started a factory at Pune. It was further contended that taking into consideration the 2 respondent' s mother' s major sickness she may required to keep full time nurse to look after her mother and accommodation is required for the nurse inside the bungalow. The respondent also requires to employ full time cook, servant and driver for her parents and herself and therefore accommodation is also required for them within the bungalow premises. It is contended that the respondent and her parents hail from affluent family of Pune and Mumbai and are used to having high standards of living. Their background is very cultured and they are very well respected and taking into consideration their status need is required to be considered. 3. The applicant denied the contention of the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent does not need the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely. It is submitted that the respondent can use remaining portion of bungalow No.4 and the outhouses surrounding the bungalow. It was also contended that in any case the greater hardship will be caused to the applicant if eviction decree is passed. As stated above, both the lower Courts below concurrently held that the respondent-landlady has proved that she needs the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely and greater hardship will be caused to the respondent if the decree of eviction is denied. 4. Now the position is well settled from the catena of judgments of the Hon' ble Apex Court that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and he has complete freedom in the matter. The requirement of the respondent landlady is based on principal ground 3 of illness of her mother. The respondent by producing convincing evidence has proved that her mother had breast cancer and she is undertaking treatment and she was advised by her doctors to stay at Pune as the climate of Pune is more suitable to her. The respondent has also proved her case that in view of the aforesaid development her father was also required to shift his residence and start a factory at Pune. It is also borne out from the evidence that the respondent's parents hail from affluent family, they are well cultured and respected people. In my view, taking respondent's family's social status and family background into considerastion the premises available for respondent-landlady in bungalow No.4 cannot said to be adequate and sufficient. The respondent needs accommodation for nurse whose services are required to look after her mother, mother's cook and servants. The premises are also needed to accommodate friends, relatives and visitors of respondent family members. In fact the the applicant has admitted that there is no place available in bungalow to the respondent to accommodate servant, cook and nurse as well as friends and relatives. Taking into consideration over all circumstances I am of the view that the respondent-landlady has proved that suit premises are required reasonably and bonafide. Both the lower courts below also recorded finding to that effect. After going through the impugned judgment I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the lower courts below. Thus above findings do not require any interference in my jurisdiction under section 115 of 4 the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. This takes me to consider the issue of greater hardship. The applicant resides in the suit premises hardly for four months in a year i.e. during the period of racing season in Pune. The applicant for majority period of year is residing either at Bangalore or at Mumbai. Admittedly the applicant has properties at Bangalore. He is financially well off and having sufficient funds to purchase property at Bangalore and Pune. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this contention of the applicant that in case eviction decree is passed he will be thrown on street. No evidence is brought on record by the applicant to show that bonafide efforts were made by him to search alternate accommodation for him. The respondent-landlady offered to the applicant alternate accommodation at “Sacred Heart Society”. However this offer was not accepted by the applicant on the ground that it is far away from the race-course. In my view a tenant cannot insist alternate accommodation of similar in nature and in the same locality. Taking aforesaid facts and circumstances into consideration I am of the view that greater hardship will be caused to the respondent-landlady if the decree of eviction is denied. Similar concurrent finding is recorded by both the Courts below. I do not see any error apparent on the face of record so as to enable me to interfere in the aforesaid revision application. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the 5 lower courts below in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The revision application is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 7. At this stage Mr.Abhyankar, learned senior counsel for the applicant seeks one year's time to vacate the suit premises. Mr.Kadam, learned advocate general does not seriously oppose the said prayer subject to filing of usual undertaking by the applicant and adult members of his family. In view of the aforesaid, and in the interest of justice applicant is granted time till 31.12.2009 to vacate the suit premises subject to filing usual undertaking by adult members of the applicant' s family within a period of two weeks. Mr.Abhyankar points out that applicant' s son stays abroad and it may not be possible to file his undertaking within the aforesaid period. So far as filing of undertaking of the applicant and his wife is concerned, same be filed within two weeks. Undertaking of their son, who is abroad, be filed within a period of four weeks from today. 11.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 6