Vijay Janardhan Gandehwar vs Narsingdas Pannalal Swami
2016 Latest Caselaw 2817 Bom

                                                                                              wp6681.15
                                                       1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                                              
                                 NAGPUR.

                      WRIT    PETITION     NO.    6681      OF     2015




                                                                     
    Vijay Janardan Gandhewar,




                                                                    
    aged 64 yrs., Occu. Business,
    R/o Somnath Road, Ward No. 8
    Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.                                                        PETITIONER.




                                                    
                                                   VERSUS


    Narsingdas Pannalal Swami,
                               
    aged 74 yrs., Occu. Business,
    R/o Near Nav Bharat Prathmik
                              
    Shala, Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.                                                 RESPONDENT.

Shri P. A. Mankandeywar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri R. Dawda, Advocate for the respondent.

                                     CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   JUNE  14, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties.

2] The petitioner who is a tenant of one room admeasuring about

13.8 ft. X 10.2 ft. in the premises owned by the respondent has challenged

the decree for eviction passed in favour of the respondent under provisions of

Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the

said Act). It is the case of the respondent that he was in need of the

wp6681.15

premises occupied by the petitioner so as to enable his son to carry on some

business. According to the respondent he was carrying on a grocery shop

but the income from said business was not sufficient. According to the

respondent his son was married and his liabilities had increased and

therefore there was need for additional premises. The petitioner filed his

written statement and denied the claim as made. A plea was taken that the

need was not bonafide and hence the respondent was not entitled for

possession.

3] The respondent examined himself and his son. The petitioner

examined himself as well as two more witnesses. The trial Court after

considering the aforesaid evidence found that the claim as made by the

respondent was bonafide and that the need of the son was genuine. It

further held that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if the

eviction was not ordered. The appellate Court after re-appreciating the

evidence confirmed the decree for eviction.

4] Shri P. A. Mankandeywar, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the need of the respondent was not bonafide. Referring to the

deposition of the respondent it was submitted that there were four rooms in

possession of the respondent at present and therefore the need of the

respondent's son could be duly satisfied in the said premises. He submitted

that even the respondent was doing business by using additional area that

was available in front of his grocery shop. He submitted that the

respondent's son was interested in doing agriculture and his need for doing

wp6681.15

business was pleaded only to evict the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted

that both the Courts erred in directing eviction of the petitioner.

4] Shri R. Dawda, the learned counsel for the respondent supported

the decree for eviction. He submitted that the respondent's son had become

independent and it was necessary for the respondent to settle in life. He

referred to the cross examination of the petitioner wherein he admitted that

his father was running a medical store. Similarly, another shop owned by the

family had been given on rent to a tailor. He, therefore, submitted that after

considering the entire evidence on record the decree for eviction had been

rightly passed.

5] I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length. The

bonafide need as pleaded by the respondent has been sought to be supported

by leading evidence of the respondent as well as his son. Though the son of

respondent was doing agricultural operations same by itself cannot be held to

be a factor to hold that the need for starting independent business was not

bonafide. The respondent himself had extended his business and was using

the open area in front of his shop for doing cutlery business. It has come on

record that son of the respondent was married and was having two children.

From the evidence on record it is clear that the father of the respondent was

running a medical store while another shop belonging to the family was let

out to a tenant. It is on this basis that both the Courts found the need of the

respondent to be bonafide. This finding is based on the evidence available on

record and the same cannot be said to be perverse.

wp6681.15

6] Even on the question of hardship it has been held that greater

hardship would be caused to the respondent if the decree for eviction was

not passed. The facts on record justify this conclusion. Thus taking an

overall view of the matter I do not find that both the Courts have committed

any jurisdictional error while holding in favour of the respondent. Hence,

there is no case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is

therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to

vacate the premises in question. The request is opposed by the learned

counsel for the respondent.

Considering the fact that the petitioner was in possession since

the year 1999, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises till

31.01.2017. This is subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in this

Court that he shall handover vacant possession of the suit property to the

respondent by 31.01.2017 and he shall continue to pay the agreed amount of

rent to the respondent till the end of said period. This undertaking be filed

within a period of six weeks from today. Order accordingly.

JUDGE

svk