1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2544 of 1991. Ishakha Bhawadumiya Kasai, Age since deceased by his legal heirs - 1. Umarawabi W/o Isakhan, Age 80 years, 2. Khatunbi W/o Isakhan, Age 40 years. 3. Khatunbi W/o Akabar Khan, Age 45 years, 4. Zulekhabi W/o Usmakhan, Age 40 years. 5. Nalambi W/o Sk.Wajir, Age 35 years, 6. Mathubi d/o Isakha, Age 25 years, 7. Shamimbi d/o Isakha, Age 8 years, 8. Siddikhan Isakha Kasai, Age 27 years, 9. Sarikhan Isakha Kasai, Age 17 years, 10. Rafikhan Isakha Kasai, Age 9 years, 11. Shafikkhan Isakha Kasai, 2 (No.7 to 11 are minors through their mother-natural guardian No.2 Khatunbi W/o Isakha Kasai, R/o Teli Lane, Chalisgaon). (No.4 Zulekhabi C/o Sk.Usman Sk.Suhan Kasai, R/o Dharangaon, Taluka Erandol. No.5 - Nalamai C/o Sk.Vajir Sk. Magar, R/o Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Ramdas Nimba Chaudhari, Age 35 years, Occ.Service, R/o Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.M.Dabir, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.R.Patil, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 13.01.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn judgment and decree dated 20.11.1990, rendered by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No.23/1983. The appeal preferred by the Respondent was allowed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, whereby eviction decree granted by the trial 3 Court in Civil Suit No.267/1978 came to be reversed. 2. The deceased plaintiff owned the house property bearing C.S.No.1766 situated at Chalisgaon. The Respondent was let out single room tenement. The deceased plaintiff filed suit for eviction alleging that the Respondent had failed to pay the agreed rent of Rs.15/- p.m. and was in arrears of rent from 31.12.1974 onwards. He was thus a willful defaulter. The deceased plaintiff further asserted that due to the large size of his family, consisting of two wives and 12 members in all, he was in need of the suit tenement so as to accommodate the family members. He also wanted the suit tenement to utilise the same for storage of agricultural produce and agricultural implements. He terminated the tenancy of the Respondent through a notice dated 29.11.1977. The Respondent (tenant) was informed that the tenancy stood terminated w.e.f. 3l. 12.1977. The Respondent (tenant) did not vacate the suit tenement. Consequently, the suit was laid. 4 3. The trial Court decreed the suit. The trial Court held that the Respondent was not in arrears of rent for more than six (6) months and was not proved to be willful defaulter as such. This finding has been confirmed by the first appellate Court too and was not challenged by the deceased plaintiff(landlord). 4. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court decreed the suit only on the ground that requirement of the landlord was bonafide and the suit tenement was needed for his personal use. 5. The standard rent is fixed by the Court during pendency of the suit while deciding Misc. Application No.3/1978. There is no dispute about the fact that the standard rent is fixed at the rate of Rs.10/- p.m. 6. The first appellate Court held that the bonafide requirement of the landlord was not established and, therefore, the eviction decree could not have been granted U/s 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates 5 Control Act, 1947 (for short, "the Bombay Rent Act"). Hence, the eviction decree was reversed. 7. Heard learned counsel. 8. The only material question that arises for determination is whether the deceased plaintiff (landlord) had established bonafide and personal requirement for his use of the suit tenement. 9. On plain reading of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, it is amply clear that the requirement of the landlord must be proved to be of personal nature or if it is the requirement of any other member then it must be proved that the landlord held the premises for the benefit of such a member. The requirement put-forth by the deceased landlord was of two kinds. First, it was asserted that the need was felt so as to accommodate other members of the family due to its large size. Secondly, it was stated that the suit tenement was required for the purpose of storage of agricultural implements and the 6 produce. It was the case of deceased landlord that he was agriculturist and, therefore, wanted accommodation for storage of the implements and goods inasmuch as the residential premises were insufficient for such purpose. The original plaintiff died during pendency of the suit. One of his wife, i.e. petitioner No.2 Khatoonbi entered the witness box. She did not refer to the requirement of the suit tenement for storage of the agricultural implements and produce. It appears that she narrated about requirement of the suit tenement for the purpose of accommodating other members of the family due to their large number. 10. It has come on record that the deceased plaintiff owned three (3) houses. He was having four rooms with him in the house property of which the suit tenement is a part and parcel. The evidence on record purports to show that the deceased plaintiff alienated two houses, one before filing of the suit and another during pendency of the suit. The trial Court observed : 7 "It has also come on record that they had sold two (2) premises to another person. This fact again goes to prove that the residential premises is really short for them. On the other hand, defendant has also stated likewise that he is not in a position to obtain another premises on rental basis and, therefore, the demand of the plaintiff can not be granted. But according to me if the owner is in acute need of the peremises then the tenant is bound to vacate it......." How such observations could have been made by the learned trial Judge is rather difficult to comprehend. The conduct of the landlord is not properly appreciated by the trial Court and, therefore, the first appellate Court was justified in up-setting such a finding. It appears that the deceased landlord attempted to show that there were bickering between the two wives and, therefore, he needed the suit tenement so as to accommodate the second wife i.e. PW 8 Khatoonbi. However, such kind of explanation was not given during the trial nor there was any explanation as to why she was not accommodated in another house which was alienated during pendency of the suit. There can not be duality of opinion that due to change in the circumstances, the landlord may require the premises for accommodation of the members who may need the premises due to growing of age or other reasons. However, such a bonafide requirement must be properly spelt out and proved. The absence of any explanation as to why the other two (2) houses, which were available to the deceased plaintiff were not utilised for segregation of the second wife and her children would show that there was no bonafide requirement of the suit tenement. It is admitted by PW Khatoonbi, unequivocally, that one of the house was sold prior to about one and half years before her entering the witness box in favour of one Bajuali Mohammadali and another was sold during pendency of the suit. Considering these aspects, the findings of facts rendered by the first appellate Court can not be termed as improper or 9 perverse. Needless to say, no case is made out by the petitioners so as to interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp254491