Bombay High Court
Dharampeth Gruhanirman Sah. ... vs Shri. Sumukh S/O Diwakarrao ... on 12 October, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
8.wp.3485.2016.Judg. -.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3485/2016
Dharampeth Gruhanirman Sah. Sanstha,
Office at 89(c) Ram Nagar through
General Power of Attorney
Shri. Pramod S/o Manoharrao Kulkarni,
R/o. Plot No.26, Cosmopolitian Society
Wardha Road, Nagpur. (Ori. Appellant) ..... PETITIONER
(Ori. Plaintiff)
// VERSUS //
Shri Sumukh S/o Diwakarrao Varadpande,
A/a: 50 Yrs, Occ.:- Agriculturist,
R/o.:- Block No.1, Constructed on Plot No.1,
Samarth Nagar (East) Wardha road, Nagpur. (Ori. Respondent)
.... RESPONDENT
(Ori. Defendant)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. A. Randive, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V. S. Bapat, Advocate for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 12/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Heard Mr. Randive, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Bapat, learned counsel for the respondent.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
8.wp.3485.2016.Judg. -.odt
4] The petitioner has filed a suit for eviction on the ground of
Sections 15 and 16 (1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
(for short "the said Act"). The learned Trial Court, by the Judgment
dated 12.11.2013, decreed the suit and granted a decree for eviction
from the suit property and also decree for arrears of rent and enquiy into
the future mesne profit. The defence set up by the tenant that he was in
possession of the suit property, not as a tenant but under an agreement
of hire purchase was negatived on the ground, that no such document
was placed on record, neither was there any material to substantiate the
plea. The finding regarding tenancy was based upon Exhs.27 and 29
which were proved in the cross-examination of the defendant, which
were rent receipts. A decree of eviction was passed.
5] This decree for eviction and arrears of rent was challenged
before the learned Appellate Court by the respondent in Appeal No.
34/2014, wherein by a judgment dated 01/02/2016, the decree
regarding arrears of rent was maintained, however, the decree for
eviction on the ground of bona-fide need was set aside. The learned
Appellate Court held that there was no evidence placed on record by the
petitioner regarding the existing venue of its office nor the extent of
requirement and the finding rendered by the Court below regarding
eviction was neither supported by pleadings nor evidence, even
8.wp.3485.2016.Judg. -.odt
regarding comparative hardship. The petition challenges the denial of
the decree for eviction on the ground of bona-fide need. Mr. Randive,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the need has been
established on record, apart from which the plea which was raised by the
respondent / defendant, regarding being put in possession of the suit
property on a hire purchase basis, was found to be without substance in
absence of a document and therefore, the learned Appellate Court ought
not to have disturbed the finding regarding bona-fide need under
Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act. He therefore submits that the
Judgment of the learned Appellate Court, denying the relief of eviction,
needs to be set aside and the Judgment of the learned Trial Court,
granting the same needs to be restored.
6] Mr. Bapat, learned counsel for the respondent / tenant
submits that there is no finding whatsoever rendered by the learned Trial
Court regarding the satisfaction of the requirement under Section 16(1)
(g) of the said Act, in view of which, permission could not have been
granted, which has rightly been set aside by the Appellate Court. He
further submits that on behalf of the petitioner / plaintiff, one Pramod
Manohar Kulkarni had entered the witness box on the basis of a power
of attorney and relying upon Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs.
Indusind Bank Ltd. And others reported in 2005 (3) BCR 846 , he
8.wp.3485.2016.Judg. -.odt
submits that the said person was not competent to give evidence on
behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, there was no evidence whatsoever
by the plaintiff in support of its claim.
7] A bare perusal of the Judgment by learned Trial Court,
indicates that there is absolutely no reasoning whatsoever in regard to
the plea raised by the plaintiff under Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act.
Except for a finding rendered in Para 28 in the last four lines, the entire
Judgment does not dilate upon the need urged by the petitioner, the
evidence led on it and the reason why the same was accepted by the
Small Causes Court. In absence of any such discussion and reasoning, a
mere finding rendered that the plaintiff was entitled for the decree of
eviction and possession, clearly is unsustainable in law. Upon a specific
pertinent question being put to Mr. Randive, learned counsel for
petitioner to point out the reasoning or discussion regarding the plea
under Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act in the Judgment of the Small
Causes Court, except for the last four lines of Para 28, he is not able to
point out anything. It is a settled position of law, that a finding rendered
without any discussion or reason indicating why the same is being
rendered, would not satisfy the requirement of law in this regard. That
being the position, in my considered opinion, the Judgment of the
learned Small Causes Court, insofar as it grants permission under
Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act, is clearly not sustainable in law. Added
8.wp.3485.2016.Judg. -.odt
to that, is the finding rendered by the Appellate Court regarding the
absence of pleadings and evidence in this regard as indicated in para 36
of the Appellate Court's Judgment.
8] For the reasons given above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Rule is discharged.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)
Sarkate.
