Bombay High Court
Keshavlal Vallabhdas Ganatra vs Devsing Nathusing Rane on 19 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 934wp7058.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7058 OF 2018
Keshavlal Vallabhdas Ganatra Vs. Devsing Nathusing Rane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J.B.Gandhi, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. U.J.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 19/08/2022
1] Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2] The petition challenges the judgment dated
20.4.2018 (page 18) passed by the learned appellate
Court, whereby the decree for eviction passed by the
learned trial Court in the suit for eviction filed by the
petitioner/landlord has been set aside and the suit for
eviction has been dismissed.
3] Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the
petitioner has taken me through the judgment of the
learned trial Court as well as that of the appellate Court
and so also the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and contends
that a case for bonafide need was made out and has been
rightly held to have been established by the learned trial
Court. He contends that the learned appellate Court was
(2) 934wp7058.18
not justified in upsetting the findings of the learned trial
Court, on the ground that the premises in occupation of
the respondent/tenant were not required by the
petitioner/landlord for any bonafide need, but was a ruse
to evict the tenant. Relying upon Nilkanthrao
Raghunathji Chute vrs. Dattatraya Narayanrao Balakhe,
(2019) 4 ALL MR 854 (para 13), it is submitted that the
landlord is the best judge of his need and therefore, the
learned appellate Court could not have held to the
contrary.
4] Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the
respondent supports the impugned judgment and
submits that the learned appellate Court has rightly held
that the need put forth was illusory and was for the
purpose of evicting the tenant and was not genuine and
bonafide.
5] The factual position on record indicates that
the petitioner is the owner of house property bearing
Nazul Sheet No. 28-8 Plot No. 82/2, situated at Akot,
which comprises of one shop and 4 rooms with toilet and
bathroom on the ground, with open land abutting, the
first floor comprising of 4 rooms with toilet and
bathtoom and the second floor comprising of a room and
open space. The respondent is a tenant on the first floor.
(3) 934wp7058.18
6] The petitioner has three sons and one
daughter, the daughter being married and residing at her
matrimonial place. One, out of the three sons, is serving
outside. Plot No. 50, another property belongs to the
younger son of the petitioner, which comprises of three
rooms on the ground floor and five rooms on the first
floor in which presently the petitioner and the family of
his two sons are residing.
7] A perusal of the evidence of the petitioner
indicates that 4 rooms on the ground floor of the suit
premises have been standing vacant since long, may be
even prior to the filing of the suit. However, no attempt
has been made by the plaintiff to make use of the said
rooms by occupying them. This clearly reflects upon the
claim of bonafide need being made by the petitioner/
plaintiff. It is not the case as if these rooms on the ground
floor of the plot No. 82/2 are not habitable, as there is no
such pleading or averment either in the plaint or the
evidence. The only need pleaded is that PW-2 Girish, one
of the sons of the petitioner, was not on good terms with
the other sons and therefore, they were required to be
separated. Even if this position is accepted, nothing
prevented the petitioner from asking PW-2 to occupy the
ground floor of the house constructed on plot No. 82/2,
which is lying vacant and is in possession of the plaintiff
since long. The learned appellate Court has rightly
considered this position in the impugned judgment.
(4) 934wp7058.18
8] Though it cannot be disputed that the
landlord is the best judge of his requirement as held in
Nilkant (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, however, at the same time the provisions
of Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
cannot be lost sight of while considering the question of
bonafide need. Since it is an admitted position on record
that 4 rooms on the ground floor of the house on Plot
No. 82/2, as well as the room on the second floor of the
same house are lying vacant and are available for the
petitioner for shifting the family of his son PW-2, which
has not been done, the plea of bonafide need, in my
considered opinion, does not appear to be genuine, as
rightly held by the learned appellate Court. I therefore do
not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment
by the learned appellate Court. The petition is therefore
without any merits and is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:19.08.2022 20:06
