1 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.140 OF 2008 Motilal Maheshkumar Firm, Through Partners. 1. Omprakash s/o Ramchandra Toshniwal, Age: 49 years Occ: Business, r/o Shashtri Nagar, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Narmadabai w/o Ramchandra Toshniwal, Age: 70 years Occ: Nil, r/o as above. ...PETITIONERS (Ori.Deft.No.3 & 4) VERSUS 1. Satyanarayan s/o Hardeo Agrawal, Age 63 years, Occ: Agril. r/o Mondha Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Zankarbai w/o Motilal Bhandari, Died. 3. Ashokkumar s/o Motilal Bhandari, Age; 43 years Occ: Business r/o Shashtri Nagar, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. (4. Kantilal s/o Bansilal Bhandari, Age 45 years, Occ: Business r/o Mondha Partur, Dist. Parbhani.) (No.4 deleted as per the leave of Hon'ble Court by order dt.23.6.2010) RESPONDENTS (R.No.1 Ori.Pltff. R.2-4 Ori. Respondents) 2 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. B.A.Darak, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr.Swapnil Rathi, Adv., for respondent no.1. respondent no.3 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8/12/2010 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, who waive service, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. By directions dt.30th Sept.,2010, it was agreed that the matter could be heard finally at admission stage itself, in tune with age of the respondents in particular. Heard finally. 3. The concurrent findings against the tenant directing eviction from commercial premises is the rostrum by the learned Senior Counsel. 4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, both the Courts have erred in not appreciating the evidence in the legal perspective as it was the unilateral terrorism of the landlord/respondent which forced enhancement of yearly rentals initially were at Rs.1500/- to 3 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 annually Rs.3700/-. There was no controversy from the Tenant and had no contest to make the remittance at the reasonable rate of Rs.2100/- annually. However, such exorbitant increase has created a situation of contrition for the tenant to avoid remittance. Even if there was default, at the first instance, after receiving the summons, the amounts are remitted. 5. The second limb of submission was, the premises was sought for bona fide requirement of the landlord which, in the set of comparative hardship, would not be maintainable. According to him, one of the son of the landlord resides at Hyderabad, the other is in private service. The record clarifies, the landlord has four sons; one of them resides at Sailu. This is the only source for the tenant to meet his livelihood. Western side major portion of the suit premises is with the landlord which could be well utilized to start the business. The decree of eviction, is more harmful and in pains for tenant than the landlord. 6. With the assistance of learned Senior Counsel, I have analyzed the evidence and also perused the observations of the learned Rent Controller in his judgment dt.19.7.2005 and of the learned District Judge in his judgment dt.4th 4 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 Oct.,2008. Both the Courts have meticulously discussed the worth of the evidence adduced by the tenant and the landlord. The discussion of the enhancement of the rentals is also explained, which cannot be branded to be flowing out of context. It is a matter of record, the tenant is slapped with three money decrees. One of the decree has been even confirmed upto this Court. The conduct certainly illustrates, the tenant has wilfully avoided remittance of the rent under the pretext that it was excessive. The tenant never adhered to the procedure to get the rentals fixed from competent forum. 7. Then, turning to the point of bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller recorded that there is no shop in existence towards western side of the suit house. The sons of the landlord are engaged in private service. They desire to carry business. The landlord has no alternate premises owned, except the suit premises. My attention was invited by learned Counsel to certain photographs depicting position on western side of the road where part of the premises is located. Even if as per photograph some shops are in existence at the western side, it is explicit that the premises in occupation of the landlord in its shape illustrated in the photograph is in a dilapidated condition and more leaning as for residential user than to accept to 5 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 be used for commercial activities. The part of the property in possession of the tenant, admittedly, is in the Market Area (Mondha), which is the feasible place for carrying the activities either of commission agency or for grocery items. These aspects were considered by both the Courts. 8. Though I find that there was no issue formulated of comparative hardship, its answer is provided by the learned District Judge in his finding recorded in paragraph No.17 while answering point No.3. Both the parties were conscious, the nature of the evidence they have to adduce which, indeed, they have adduced and, based on the same, the findings are arrived that it is the paramount need of the landlord which has its basic root in the matter and, consequently, the decree was confirmed. 9. The law on the point of requirement of the landlord is well settled and crystalized in several pronouncements. The landlord need not be dictated as to how he should occupy or reside in the premises or which business he should carry or to which direction he should do it. 10. The reasonable bona fide need of the landlord if supported by material evidence on record has to be respected. 6 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 11. Even if some premises owned by the landlord is available to occupy by him for residence, in such circumstances also, the premises required by the landlord in occupation of the tenant will have the prominence. I quite see, in the set of situation that the bona fide or genuine need of the landlord in the facts and circumstances of the case is not a farce or cause to evict the tenant for any other ulterior purposes. 12. The law on the point of landlord's bona fide requirement is set at rest by the Apex Court in the matters of Motilal Chandulal Darak V. Abdul Mazid Tar-Mohammad Kacchi ( 1981 Mh.L.J. 843) and Jainuddin Abdul Rehman Shaikh Vs. Sitaram Damodar Varvadkar and others ( 1981 Mh.L.J. 498). 13. Mr. Rathi, learned Counsel informs, way back in 1987, a statement was made by the tenant that he would be vacating the premises very soon, however, it has not been honoured. I do not wish to attach much importance to it, it is figment. 14. The scope for a revision to be entertained is illustrated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan ( (2008) 10 SCC 73) and Abdul Rehman Shora V. State of Jammu and Kashmir ( (2009) 2 7 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 SCC 617); so also in the matter of Shaikh Jaffar vs. Mohd.Pasha (1975 SC 794). Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. 15. Survey of all the above facts illustrate, there is no perversity in the order under challenge. The order of the appellate Court cannot be considered to be in contrast to the record or demonstrating any mayhem. 16. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.V.Mandlik and learned Counsel Mr.Swapnil Rathi on grant of extension to vacate. Learned Senior Counsel informs, the tenant has to search a shop feasible for carrying his long drawn business in the Market Yard, though there are observations of available premises. To search other premises in the vicinity, it will take time. He has urged for grant of some breathing period to meet the challenge. Mr.Rathi, learned Counsel for the landlord says, 12 to 15 months' period would be sufficient, to retain occupation. In the light of rival submissions, the tenant-revisional applicant is given time to vacate the premises upto 30th Nov.,2012. The tenant shall give an undertaking that he will not part with occupation, will regularly remit the rentals and vacate the premises on the due date i.e. 30th Nov.,2012, without demur. Such 8 CIV.R.A.NO.140 of 2008 undertaking in all certainties shall be binding to the tenant, his legal representatives or assignees in interest. This will be so specified in the undertaking. Revision dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/140-08cra