( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 1991 Yaturaj Mallaya Adep Since deceased by L.Rs. 1A. Ramdas Yaturaj Adep Since deceased by L.Rs. (a) Bharati w/o Ramdas Adep (b) Suresh Ramdas Adep (c) Shankar Ramdas Adep (d) Balaji Ramdas Adep (e) Nagesh Ramdas Adep (f) Archana Ramdas Adep (g) Tulja Ramdas Shriramul (h) Siddesh Ramdas Adep (i) Swapnil Ramdas Adep (j) Vijaya Ramdas Adep (k) Ashwini Ramdas Adep All above r/o Saliwada, Chavanpura, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 1B. Ambadas Yaturaj Adep 1C. Dattatraya Yaturaj Adep 1D. Kamal w/o Ambadas Tipras R/o Saliwada, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Vasant Shankar Kamble Since deceased by L.Rs. 1-a. Indumati Vasant Kambale, R/o Chavanpura, H.No. 1841, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 1-b. Deelip Vasant Kambale, R/o Chavanpura, Sangamner ( 2 ) 1-c. Hirabai w/o Vasant Diwane, R/o Indiranagar, Lane No. 4, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 1-d. Pushpa Bhagwat, R/o Pune. 1-e. Mangal Bhambale, R/o Nasik. 1-f. Chingi Supekar, R/o Ahmednagar. 1-g. Manik Bhagwat, R/o Ahmednagar. 2. Sonabai Shankar Kambale (Name of this respondent is deleted as per Additional Registrar’s order dt. 3.8.1992) 3. Janardan Shankar Kambale 4. Subhash Shankar Kambale Since deceased, by L.Rs. (a) Suman Subhash Kambale (b) Bholanath Subhash Kambale (c) Balu Subhash Kambale (d) Alka Subhash Kambale, All r/o Rangar Galli, Near Shani Temple, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for respondents No. 1-a to 1g. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 14th January, 2010] ( 3 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition is to judgement rendered by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in appeal (R.C.A. No. 307/1985) whereby and whereunder judgement rendered by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sangamner in suit (R.C.S. No. 469/1979) came to be reversed. By the impugned judgement, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge grantee eviction decree in favour of the respondent (landlord). 2. The petitioners are legal representatives of deceased tenant. The respondents are legal representatives of deceased landlord. The suit was filed by the respondents alongwith deceased respondent No. 1 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful defaults and bonafide requirement of the suit tenament. The suit tenament is a part of house bearing C.T.S. No. 2208 comprising of six (6) khans area. 3. Briefly stated, the case of deceased respondent ( 4 ) No. 1 (landlord) was that he was allotted the house property during course of internal partition between himself and his brothers. He occupied part of the house property. The tenant failed to pay the agreed rent and committed willful defaults. The suit premises were required personally for his family members. Consequently, the landlord issued notice dated 23-10-1979 and terminated the tenancy rights of the tenants. Though the tenancy rights were terminated, yet, suit tenament was not vacated and as such, the eviction suit was filed. 4. The suit was resisted by the tenant by filing written statement (Exh-14). He denied all the material averments made by the landlord. He asserted that he was in actual possession of only 4 and ½ khans area whereas area of the house property was in possession of the landlord. He contended that he never committed willful default. He submitted that originally, agreed rent was of Rs. 6/- per month which was raised to Rs. 10/- per month. It was his contention that he was in need of the suit tenament in order to accommodate his large family ( 5 ) members and there would be greater hardship caused to him if eviction decree was passed. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenant was not willful defaulter and moreover, for the reason that the landlord failed to prove personal and bonafide requirement. The trial Court held further that comparative hardship to the tenant was of greater magnitude than that of the landlord. The first Appellate Court confirmed the finding that the tenant had not committed willful defaults. However, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the personal and bonafide requirement of the landlord was duly proved and, therefore, eviction decree under section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, “the Bombay Rent Act”) was warranted. Hence, the appeal was allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel. 7. Before I proceed to consider the rival ( 6 ) contentions, it may be useful to refer the brief statement made in the pleadings of the landlord in so far as the alleged bonafide and personal requirement is concerned. The vernacular portion of the pleadings in one sentence is thus : “ (The premises in possession of the defendant are required by the plaintiff No. 1 for his family honestly and, therefore, for both the reasons, the plaintiff issued notice dated 23-10-1979 and terminated the rights of the defendant as a tenant and demanded possession of the premises by end of 30th November, 1979). Thus it will be explicit that the landlord did not spell out his specific requirement of the suit tenament and vaguely asserted that the same was needed for his family. Though there is no particular requirement as ( 7 ) such, yet, ordinarily, the pleadings are expected to be clear and indicative of the ground on which the eviction decree is sought. The tenant cannot be taken by surprise if no specific averments are made in order to show the alleged personal and bonafide requirement. 8. In the wake of such vague pleadings, I shall now advert to testimony of PW1 Vasant (landlord). He stated that he is in possession of 6 khans area of the house property. He further deposed that in the premises, which were in his possession, he alongwith his wife, one son and daughter were living together. He further stated that the son was about 26 years and the daughter was about 17 years old. He, no doubt, stated that his son is handicapped. According to him, his wife was doing the work of preparing bidis. Inspite of all such kind of statement, there is no whisper in his statement that he wanted the suit tenament in order to accommodate his young matured son or for the purpose of so called work of the wife or for the personal use of the daughter. In fact, his statement only informs about number of members who reside in his family. His version ( 8 ) does not spell out nature of physical problem suffered by him. One does not know his whether his son requires any separate accommodation due to physical disability. The absence of categorical statement regarding bonafideness of the requirement is not considered by the learned Additional District Judge. It is very clear that the evidence and the pleadings of the landlord did not go together and suffered from either vagueness or inconsistency. 9. It is pertinent to notice that the tenant adduced evidence to show the fact that he was residing in the suit tenament alongwith large number of family members i.e. his sons, etc. comprising of eleven (11) members. He made categorical statement that if eviction decree is ordered, then he will be thrown on the street. In other words, his greater hardship is brought on surface of the record. As stated before, the landlord is in possession of the suit premises of 6 khans area whereas the tenant is in possession of 4 and ½ khans area of the house property. The landlord was having four members in the family whereas the tenant was having ( 9 ) 11 members in the family. The learned Additional District Judge failed to compare the needs and the hardship which could be the result of the eviction decree. 10. In “Sitaram Narayan Shinde and others v. Ibrahim Ismail Rais and others” 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 35, this Court considered somewhat similar situation. It was noticed that the landlord had spelt out the requirement in two lines which vaguely indicated that there was insufficiency of accommodation and he wanted to make additional construction. The learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karnik) held that there must be some pleading spelling out the need to enable the tenant to resist the claim. It is observed that there must be sufficient evidence about the need in consonance with the basic pleading of need mentioned in the plaint. I respectfully follow the observations in the given case. I deem it proper to hold that there was lack of basic pleadings of need on the issue of bonafide requirement. The evidence regarding such requirement ( 10 ) also was insufficient to render the eviction decree. Hence, the impugned judgement and order is unsustainable and will have to be interfered with. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside. The parties to bear their own costs. 12. In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil application No. 10527/2008 stands disposed of. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2873-91