Bombay High Court
Madhukar Kishanrao Wattamwar vs Mohd. Ashraf Haji Shakur on 8 August, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2010
Madhukar S/o Kishanrao Wattamwar
Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o : Parbhani, Tal. & Dist. ..... APPLICANT/
Parbhani. [ORI. DEFENDANT]
ig V E R S U S
Mohd. Ashraf S/o Haji Shakur
Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o : Ambedkar Road,
Kapad Market, Parbhani, ..... RESPONDENT/
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. [ORI. PLAINTIFF]
.....
Mr. P.S.Paranjape, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Gajanan Kadam, Advocate for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08/08/2016
JUDGMENT :
1. The Revision Application is filed against the
Judgment and Decree of eviction proceeding which was
2 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
given No. 87/RC/0/21 by the Rent Controller appointed
under the Hyderabad Rent Act and also against the
Judgment and decree of Rent Appeal No. 1/2009 which
was pending in the District Court, Parbhani. The Suit
filed by the present respondent/landlord for eviction on
the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use u/s
15 of the Hyderabad Rent Act is decided in his favour.
Heard Both sides.
2. In short the facts leading to the institution of
the proceeding can be stated as follows.
which consists of 4 shops situated on the ground floor
which are marked as A,B,C and D in the map annexed
with the petition filed before the Rent Controller. On the
first floor of this building, there is some constructed
portion which is being used by the respondent/landlord
for residence and as his go-down.
3. It is the case of the present respondent that
he is doing business of cloth in the shop marked as A. It
is contended that adjacent to shop A, there is shop B
which is given on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- to the
3 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
defendant/present applicant. It is contended that shop
marked as C is in possession of one Sudhakar and shop
marked as D is in possession of Mohd. Younus and they
were inducted as tenants almost in the same year i.e. in
the year 1968 when defendant was inducted as tenant in
shop marked as B.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that initially he
was not in need of more premises considering the nature
and extent of the business and so he had given 3 shops on
rent basis to present defendant and other 2 tenants. It is
contended that from the year 1970, his business
flourished and turn over of his business went on
increasing. It is contended that in the year 1068-69 the
price of the cloth purchased was around ` 1.43 Lakh, it
went up to ` 28 Lakh in the year 1985-86 and then the
actual sale of goods was of ` 29 Lakh. It is contended
that due to the increase in the business, he needs more
space and so he is in need of 3 shops marked as B,C and
D. He contended that he has taken steps against all the
tenants for eviction on the ground of bonafide
requirement and he had informed the present applicant
also about his need by notice given on 13/10/1986 and
4 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
31/10/1986. It is the case of landlord that he had
informed the tenant that his right to continue as tenant
was terminated and he needs to hand over the
possession, but he avoided to hand over the possession.
The Suit came to be filed on 17/10/1987.
5. Defendant filed Written Statement and
contested the matter. He admitted the relationship. He
admitted that aforesaid 4 shops are owned by the plaintiff
and he is running cloth business in shop A and there are 3
tenants in the shops B,C and D. He denied that the
plaintiff needs shop B for expansion of his business and
he denied that the business of the plaintiff of cloth has
increased many times since 1968-69. It is contended that
the portion in possession of the plaintiff/landlord is 4
times bigger than the portion of the defendant. He
contended that the plaintiff is rich person and he owns
many properties in Parbhani and so his claim is not
bonafide. The defendant took defence that in the past
similar Suit was filed by the plaintiff and it was dismissed
though for default. The defendant contended that the
plaintiff wants to run the business with his sister and
probably for that business he wants the suit premises.
5 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
6. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, issues
were framed by the Rent Controller. Both sides gave
evidence. On the basis of the evidence, Rent Controller
has given finding that the plaintiff has proved his case
about bonafide requirement of the suit premises for
personal use and finding is given that the defendant
failed to prove that greater hardship will be caused to
him if eviction order is made against him.
7. The first appellate Court has confirmed
the aforesaid findings given by the Rent Controller and
specific points were formulated on the ground of
bonafide requirement and on the issue of greater
hardship. In this proceeding, only these points were
argued.
8. During arguments, learned counsel for the
applicant/tenant submitted that during the pendency of
the proceeding in the Courts below, the landlord got
possession of remaining 2 shops and so it can not be said
that he still requires the suit premises for personal use.
Even if this submission is accepted as it is, that can not
change the fate of the matter. Admittedly, the landlord
6 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
had taken action against 3 tenants by filing Suits on the
same ground and if the other 2 tenants compromised the
matter and surrendered possession to the landlord, this
circumstance can not be used to say that now the
landlord is having sufficient space for expansion of his
business.
9. The pleadings from Written Statement
already quoted show that the tenant feels that for starting
business, though new with the sister, the plaintiff needs
the suit premises. In the evidence of the parties, it is
brought on record that under 2 names, the plaintiff is
doing business in shop marked as A in the map. The
defendant has admitted that his business has also
increased though he has avoided to admit that the
business of the landlord has increased many times. In the
cross examination of the plaintiff, it is brought on record
that the plaintiff has appointed as many as 25 employees
in his shop. This single circumstance is sufficient to infer
that the business of landlord has increased and he
requires more space. There is oral evidence to
substantiate the case of bonafide requirement for
personal use and documents of turn over submitted to the
7 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
income tax office by the plaintiff are produced, which is
consistent with the case of the plaintiff.
10. The defendant took defence that the plaintiff
is having more property in Parbhani, but he did not
produce any record to prove such case. The plaintiff has
not admitted that he owns other properties also in
Parbhani.
11. The pleadings in Written Statement and the
oral evidence of the defendant does not show that he
made any attempt to find out alternate accommodation
for shifting his business to that place. It is not his case
that he can not afford to spend more on rent and he can
not get similar accommodation in that locality. Such
pleadings and evidence was necessary to show that
greater hardship will be caused to the respondent if
decree of eviction is given. The respondent has given
evasive answers with regard to the case of the plaintiff
that he is in need of the suit premises for expansion of his
business.
12. There are more circumstances on which
8 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
some argument was advanced. Learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that in the past Suit for eviction
was filed on the same ground but it was withdrawn and
so the present Suit is not tenable. This point is dealt with
by the Courts below. The Suit was not decided on merit.
The claim is on the ground of bonafide requirement for
personal use and so such Suit is tenable.
ig Learned counsel for the applicant placed
reliance on some cases reported as (1977) 1 SCC - 451
[Purushottam Das Vs. The VIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Allahabad & Ors.], 2003 (1) SCR - 329
[Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada Vs. Govindram
Ramgopal Mundada], Case decided by High Court of
Madras [Madurai Bench] in C.R.P. (MD) No. 2094 of
2013 (NPD) and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 to 2013 & 1 of
2014 decided on 10/10/2014 and Civil Revision
application No. 244 of 2007 decided on 14/12/2009
by this Court [CORAM : R.K.Deshpande, J.].
14. The facts and circumstances of each and
every case is always different.
9 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
15. Learned counsel for the landlord/respondent
also placed reliance on the cases reported as 2007 (3)
ALD 69 (SC) [ Julieta Antonieta Tarcato Vs. Suleiman
Ismail], 2007 (3) ALL MR - 534 [Sara Rauf and Joe
Shera Rauf Vs. Durgashankar Ganeshlal Shroff (D)
through L.Rs.] and Civil Revision Application No. 786
of 1989 decided on 28/08/2003 by this Court [CORAM
: A.B.Naik,J.].
16. It is already observed that each and every
case needs to be decided on the basis of the facts of that
case. In the present matter, the landlord came with
specific case that he wants the suit premises for
expansion of his existing business and he has proved this
case. The findings of the Courts below on this fact are
consistent and they are in favour of the landlord. The
respondent has failed to prove that greater hardship will
be caused to him if decree of eviction is given against
him. In view of these circumstances, there was no
alternative before the Courts below than to give the
decree of eviction. Considering the limited scope of this
proceeding, this Court holds that it is not possible to
interfere in the decision given by the Courts below.
10 C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
17. In the result, Civil Revision Application
stands dismissed.
18. At this stage, learned counsel for the
applicant seeks time as he wants to challenge the decision
of this Court. Four weeks time from today is given to the
applicant to vacate the suit premises.
[T.V.NALAWADE, J.]
KNP/C.R.A. 83.2010 - %5BJ%5D .odt
