1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REIVISION APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2007 Janardan S/o Nivrutti Gireme, Age 68 years, Occu. Agri. R/o Malinagar, Tal. Malshiras, District Solapur. ...APPELLANT V E R S U S 1) Chirayou S/o Ajit Nagarkar, Age 19 years, Occu. Educational R/o Municipal House No.3916/1, Near Namdeo Mandir, Shivaji Cross Road, Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2) Ajit s/o Prabhakar Nagarkar, Age 48 years, Occu. Business, R/o Municipal House No.3916/1, Near Namdeo Mandir, Shivaji Cross Road, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL REIVISION APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2007 Janardan S/o Nivrutti Gireme, Age 68 years, Occu. Agri. R/o Malinagar, Tal. Malshiras, District Solapur. ...APPELLANT V E R S U S 1) Ajit s/o Prabhakar Nagarkar, Age 48 years, Occu. Business, R/o Municipal House No.3916/1, Near Namdeo Mandir, Shivaji Cross Road, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. 2 2) Chirayou S/o Ajit Nagarkar, Age 19 years, Occu. Educational R/o Municipal House No.3916/1, Near Namdeo Mandir, Shivaji Cross Road, Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS Shri. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 10/03/2010 PER COURT:- 1) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2) Both the revisions being arising out of common judgment recorded by the IInd Addl. District Judge, Shrirampur, on 22/12/2005, are heard together, as the controversy involved is the same. 3) Eviction proceedings were initiated by the Plaintiff/land lord in respect of second block comprising of 3 rooms out of Municipal House No. 4861 (Old No.2421) situated at first floor of a Building Balwant Bhuwan, situate at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Shrirampur. The suit premises was let out to Prabhakar Balwant Nagarkar on monthly rent of Rs. 15/- plus municipal taxes. 3 4) It was canvassed by the Landlord/Plaintiff, during the life time of said Prabhakar he had purchased and constructed a bungalow at Shivaji cross road, near Namdeo Mandir and he has started residing at said place alongwith his wife and children. Prabhakar expired while he was residing in the suit premises. The suit property was locked for a period of 6 months. It is contended the premises was not required to the Respondent and on the contrary the tenant had allowed one Mr. Gadiya to use the suit premises at night hours. 5) During the pendency of the suit the defendant No.2 Chirayu Ajit Nagarkar was added as party vide Exhibit 16 as stand was taken, he is the tenant of the suit premises after the death of Prabhakar. 6) The learned C.J.J.D. Shrirampur in R.C.S.No. 318/1997 by decree dated 8th March, 2001 accepted the contentions of the landlord/plaintiff, on the ground of bonafide requirement, the defendant having acquired suitable accommodation, the suit premises has not been used by the defendant without reasonable cause for residence for continuous period of 6 months. The learned Judge found, the defendant No. 2 neither established that he has become tenant in the suit premises nor he was residing with the deceased Prabhakar Nagarkar at the time of his death. This decree was contested 4 before the First Appellate court who reversed the same and consequently the present Civil Revision Applications. 7) Elaborate submissions are advanced by both the sides. There is no controversy that Chirayu grand son of original tenant was born on 13/1/1981. His father Ajit Nagarkar has constructed a bungalow referred above, wherein Ajit is staying with other brother of Chirayu and family members. 8) The Defendant no.2 set up a claim it was Prabhakar who during his life time executed a will whereby tenancy rights are bequeathed to Chirayu and consequently he has become the tenant/licensee of the suit premises. The other contentions was, by virtue of Section 5(11)(c) as Chirayu Defendant No.2 stayed lastly with Prabhakar in the suit premises he becomes a tenant, since he comes within the terms of "any member". For this purpose the counsel for Chirayu took recourse to the entries in Ration Card of 1993 and demonstrated that Chirayu was residing with his grand father away from his father Ajit. 9) It has also been canvassed on behalf of Chirayu that the need of the landlord is not genuine nor it could be termed as bonafide. The landlord has two sons. They are carrying business activities at Pune. Landlord resides at Malinagar. He has no reason to go to Shrirampur as even his 5 agricultural fields are encumbered being in use and enjoyment of tenants. 10) The learned counsel for the land lord contended, that of all said and done, need of the landlord has paramount consideration in the rent legislation. The tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should stay and reside nor can prescribe manner in which the landlord should occupy his premises. The learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff, relying on the judgment in the matter of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar Vs Traders Agencies & another, [1997 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal (S.C.) page 121] and particularly paragraph 13 to 20 thereof, asserts that the landlord can judge his need. The landlord cannot be put to hay-wire situation and not to be dictated how he has to reside. In the said case the landlord was residing in tenanted premises and urged that he needs his premises bonafide genuinely. 11) In the case of Balwant P. Doshi Vs. Shantaben Dhirajlal Shah and another [2002 (4) Mah. Law Journal 473], it has been observed in para 4 by this court that it is well settled that the court cannot ordinarily doubt the bonafide need of the landlord nor court can dictate to the landlord as to how the premises owned by him should be used. It is sufficient for the landlord to express his desire to occupy the 6 premises which is owned by him. It is not necessary for the landlord to establish the dire necessity but it is enough to show that some need exists. 12) In the matter of Dattaray Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune and another, [ AIR 1999 S.C. 2259] the Apex Court dealt with a situation, where landlord desired to start new business of his own, and observed that he may be a novice in the profession but that does not mean that he needs to acquire experience and then only to start the business. The Lordship observed, it is too pedantic a norm to be formulated that "no experience no venture". 13) Now reverting to the facts of the present case, as stated earlier Chirayu was born in 1981. It has been established, for all educational purposes he was at Pune for considerable long period. A minor of tender age cannot be expected ordinarily to part company of parents to live with grandfather, without reflection and regression of acrimony in relations. Preparation of ration card in the year 1993 and will deed by itself demonstrate what was running in the mind of Ajit or Prabhakar. It is more than clear, the tenant desired to disrupt the bonafide and genuine need of the landlord and only to sabotage said genuine need, he has created firstly will deed and then ration card. 7 14) The ration card by itself, though the first appellate court has observed it to be a public document, will not be a document to establish exclusive possession of a person as a tenant. The purpose of ration card is only to facilitate collection of goods at a fair price shop and no other significance can be attached. The Government of Maharashtra has, by Resolution way back in the year 1998 vide Government Resolution No.1897/1964/PK/8065/N.P. dated 21st November, 1998, clarified this situation. Will deed will not create tenency rights to stranger. 15) It was canvassed that the landed property of the landlord at Shrirampur or near by area was encumbered. This contention though repeated, is unreliable even it is little significance. The landlord's right, to get the premises from the tenant, cannot be scuttled. It cannot be said to be a indefeasible right of the so called tenant, to remain in occupation of the premises, on lame excuses. 16) It is a matter of record, Ajit father of Chirayu has independent bungalow with all amenities and as per his own version only 4 members are its occupant. It is seldom that Chirayu born in 1981 could alone live with grand father and that too at the stage of minority. To repeat, these are subterfuges created by the tenant, to effectively dodge and 8 defuse the claims of the landlord to stake his right of occupancy of the premises. 17) It is correct that bonafide need may not be dire but it should be reasonable. The reasonableness of the need should not be in the parameters to be decided by the tenant. Reasonableness needs to be adjudicated with the circumstances that are brought on the floor. The reasonableness is surfaced as Malinagar where the landlord resides is 120 to 125 k.m. away from Shrirampur. The landlord has to look after the agricultural land and also to collect rent from his other tenants. The need in the above situation will be within the bracket of reasonableness and certainly a bonafide need. Both the terms need be read in juxtaposition to each other. That starting of business by Landlord's one of the sons at Pune is not established. The evidence illustrate, out of 2 sons of landlord only one son is carrying business at Pune while other son has to start a business to make both ends meet. It is not mandatorily required that the landlord must indicate the nature of business to be started or activity or expertise in such avenue by the son. 18) It is illusory, since no commercial shop for the landlord at Shrirampur is available and consequently he need not stake claim to the residential premises. This is certainly 9 extending scope of rent legislation far fetched. There cannot be a mirage of the site as the landlord has initially occupy his residential premises, then he could with a peaceful mind search for commercial place to allow his son or himself to start business. 19) The judgment of the First Appellate Court does not dictate correct position of law. The learned Judge in all the situation was wrongly swayed away with the evidence. He has miserably dissected evidence in wrong direction as discussed above. The finding of the learned C.J.J.D. decreeing the suit of the landlord, demonstrates the correct position, including the need to get his premises. The revision certainly warrants interference, as the law and even facts are twisted erroneously. 20) Both the Civil Revision Applications are allowed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside. The order is stayed for a period of 8 weeks. Rule is made absolute. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE cmg/cra16707