Bombay High Court
Jayashri Narayan Joshi vs Ravi Subhash Sakhala And Another on 8 July, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
CRA-09-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 09 OF 2022
1. Jayashri Narayan Joshi
Age: 52 years
Occu:- Household,
R/o Mochigalli Ahmednagar
2. Rajashri Badrinarayan Nabriya
Age:- 40 years, Occ:- Household,
R/o Mochigalli Ahmednagar ... Applicants
(Orig. Defendants)
Versus
1. Ravi Subhash Sakhala
Age:- 38 years, Occu:- Nil,
2. Avinash Subhash Sakhala
Age: 37 years, Occu:- Nil,
R/o Parshakhunt, ... Respondents
(Orig. Plaintiffs)
....
Mr. S. R. Andhale, Advocate for applicants
Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for respondents
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 08th JULY, 2022
O R D E R :-
. The challenge in this revision application is to a decree
passed by the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ahmednagar in
Regular Civil Suit No. 753 of 2012 and affirmed the same by Ad-hoc
1 of 5
(( 2 )) CRA-09-2022
District Judge-1, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.119 of
2020. Vide impugned judgment and decree, the applicants herein
(original defendants) have been directed to vacate the suit premises.
It was the suit filed for eviction of the applicants herein on the
ground of bona-fide requirement.
2. Heard.
Learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that
the requirement of the landlords/respondents was neither
reasonable nor bona-fide. Both the Courts below have ignored the
evidence that the respondents-landlords have their premises to
reside in. The applicants are the daughters of the original tenant.
They have been residing in the suit premises and run a mess to earn
their living. If they are required to vacate the suit premises, greater
hardship would be caused to them. The learned Advocate took me
through the relevant evidence to ultimately urge for allowing the
revision application. He also relied on the following two authorities:
(i) Udayan Vinayak Modak and others vs Madhavi
Chandrashekhar Kale and others - 2019 (5) All M.R. 828;
(ii) M/s. Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar vs Sow Sulochanabai
Gangadharrao Wattamwar - Judgment in CRA No.91 of
2021 High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench).
2 of 5
(( 3 )) CRA-09-2022
3. The learned Advocate for the respondents - landlord on
the other hand, submit that it is a case of concurrent findings of fact.
This Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate
the factual matrix, except if a case of perversity made out. He too
took this Court to certain evidence to ultimately submit that no case
for admission of this revision application is made out.
4. Considered the submissions advanced. It is a case of
concurrent finding of fact. The respondents landlord required the
suit premises for their own occupation. The applicants-defendants in
their oral evidence have admitted that the respondents - landlord
have been residing in one room premises along with their spouses
and children, as well. The premises they have been residing in,
belonged to their father and uncle. It therefore cannot be said that
the said premises are available for the respondents - landlord to
reside in as of right. True, the suit premises has been given to them
by their father under a registered deed of gift. They have, thus,
became owners of the suit premises. Their claim that the suit
premises are required for their residence, therefore, cannot be
doubted or considered to be mala-fide. Reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of M/s. Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar (supra)
3 of 5
(( 4 )) CRA-09-2022
would be of no assistance of the applicants herein since the facts
thereof indicate that the landlord therein had very many properties.
The landlord had not disclosed the existence of those properties in
his plaint. The Court, on appreciation of the factual matrix therein,
observed the plaintiff therein to have no case of bona-fide
requirement.
The facts in the case of Udayan Vinayak Modak (supra)
would indicate that it was the concurrent finding of facts recorded
by both the Courts below, negativing the claim of the landlord. The
Court, therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, did not interfere with the judgment and decree
impugned therein.
5. It is reiterated that, here is a case of concurrent finding
of fact, holding the respondents - landlord to have made out a case
of bona-fide requirement. The evidence indicate that one of the
applicants is residing at her matrimonial home at Ichalkaranji.
Nothing was shown on their behalf to suggest that the greater
hardship would be caused to them by passing the decree. Even it
appears that the applicants did not make efforts to secure alternative
premises. On the contrary, there is evidence to indicate that the
4 of 5
(( 5 )) CRA-09-2022
applicants surrendered two room premises in favour of another
landlord who was the owner thereof.
6. As such, the decree impugned herein warrants no
interference. The Civil Revision Application, therefore, stands
dismissed.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
5 of 5
