Bombay High Court
M/S Ghatge Patil Transport Limited vs Shridhar Tukaram Khade (Deceased) Thr. ... on 25 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:8749
cra574-22.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.574 OF 2022
M/s.Ghatge Patil Transport Limited,
A Private Limited Company registered
under the Companies Act, having its
registered office at 517, E, Pune Bangalore
Road, ...Applicant
Kolhapur.
....Versus....
1. Shridhar Tukaram Khade,
(since deceased through His L.Rs. )
1a) Smt.Padmini Shridhar Khade,
. (since deceased through Her L.Rs. )
1b) Ravindra Shridhar Khade,
. Age 66 years, Occupation : Business,
Residing at Kawthe Ekand, Tal.
Tasgaon, District Sangli.
1c) Ramesh Shridhar Khade,
. Age 69 years, Occupation : Business,
Residing at Kawthe Ekand, Tal.
Tasgaon, District Sangli.
1d) Prathibha Abhinandan Chougule,
. Age 56 years, Occupation : Housewife,
Residing at Redakihal, Tal. Chikodi,
1/15
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2024 02:51:23 :::
cra574-22.doc
District Belgaum. ...Respondents
Mr.Yuvraj P. Narvankar for the Applicant.
Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale with Ms.Priyanka Babar for the Respondents.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Revision Application challenges the
concurrent findings of eviction on ground of bonafide
requirement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999
recorded by the judgment and decree dated 29 September 2022,
passed by the Principal District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil
Appeal No.159 of 2010, and the judgment and decree dated 22
April 2010, passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.502
of 1099.
2. The Applicant herein is the Original Defendant before
the Trial Court and the Respondent herein is the Original Plaintiff
before the Trial Court. The subject matter of the property (for
short "the suit premises") is one godown along with two rooms
adjoining to it bearing CTS Nos.2827, 28258 and 2831, situated
cra574-22.doc
at Madhav Nagar, Sangli. For ease of reference, the parties are
referred as per their nomenclature before the Trial Court.
3. The suit premises was leased by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant Company. By a notice, lease was terminated by the
Plaintiff. Thereafter the Plaintiff filed suit for eviction being
Regular Civil Suit No.502 of 1999, on the grounds of Bonafide
Requirement, Arrears of Rent and the Change of User. The
Defendant appeared in the matter and filed their written
statement . Issues were framed and on behalf of the Plaintiff,
evidence was led by PW - 1 Mr. Shridhar Khade, and PW 2 -
Mr.Ramesh Khade and P.W. - 3 Rohit Khade. All the witnesses of
the Plaintiff were cross-examined by the Defendant's advocate.
Thereafter, the Defendant led their evidence by examining their
Sr. Clerk - Mr. Ashok Jadhav as D.W. -1 and Mr. Ganesh Phadke,
as D.W. - 2. The said witnesses were cross-examined by the
Plaintiff's advocate.
4. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court by judgment
and decree dated 22 April 2010 passed eviction decree on the
ground of 'Bonafide Requirement' against the Defendant.
cra574-22.doc
5. Being aggrieved by the eviction decree, Original
Defendant Company filed Appeal before the District Court, being
Regular Civil Appeal No.159 of 2010. However, the Appellate
Court by its judgment and decree dated 29 January 2016,
remanded the matter back on the issues of "bar of suit under
Section 3(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
6. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment and order passed
by the Appellate Court, the original Plaintiff filed Civil Revision
Application No.148 of 2017 before this Court. By its judgment
and order this Court reversed and set-aside the judgment of the
Appellate Court and remanded the matter on the ground that the
Rent Control Act, 1947 would governed the subject matter of the
proceedings and not the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
7. After remand, the matter was again heard by the
Appellate Bench and the Appellate Bench by its judgment and
order dated 29 September 2022 passed the impugned judgment
and decree thereby confirming the decree of eviction, on the
ground of 'Bonafide Requirement'.
8. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the
cra574-22.doc
Original Defendant challenging the concurrent findings of
eviction on ground of 'Bonafide Requirement'.
9. Mr.Narvankar made his submissions on behalf of the
Original Defendant / Applicant herein.
(i). Mr. Narvankar submitted that both the courts had
failed to appreciate a very important fact, that the plaintiff had
failed to disclose the existence and possession of alternate,
adjacent and adequate premises available with the plaintiff
therefore, the need as pressed by the Plaintiff is not a bona fide
need.
(ii) Mr. Narvankar submitted that the suppression of
alternate premises available with the Plaintiff, should have been
held to be material change and even though the
Defendant/Tenant had raised such an issue before the Appellate
Court, the Court did not consider the said submissions made on
behalf of the Tenant.
(iii) There was not even a remote explanation about the
insufficiency of the premises available with the Plaintiff/Landlord.
(iv) The need as claimed by the Plaintiff, being that of the
cra574-22.doc
daughter of the Plaintiff requiring the premises for the purpose of
her business of transport, however she chose not to enter into the
witness box, to testify about the need of the premises, which was
not even refered in the plaint.
(v) The suit premises are located right in the transport hub
and were absolutely suitable for the business of the Defendant -
Tenant.
(vi) The Court did not consider the fact that the son of the
Plaintiff had settled at village Kavathe-Ekand, after his education,
therefore, there was no need subsisting at the time of filing of the
suit.
(vi) The Court did not take into consideration the cross-
examination of the Plaintiff's witness.
(vii) Mr. Narvankar relied upon the following judgment of
Bombay High Court to buttress his submission :
(a) Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani v/s. Durgashankar G.
Shroff & Ors. reported in 2004 BOMCR SUPP 1 333
(b) Sitaram Narayan Shinde & Ors v/s. Ibrahim Ismail Rais
& Ors reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 34.
cra574-22.doc
(c) Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar (M/S) v/s. Sulochanabai
w/o Gangadharrao Wattamwar reported in 2022 (4) Mh.L.J 41
10. In reply Mr. Tejpal Ingale lead his submission on behalf
of the Respondent/Landlord.
(i) Mr. Ingale submitted that two courts have concurrently
held that the Plaintiff has proved the ground of bona fide and
reasonable requirement, therefore, this Court under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure should not entertain this Civil
Revision Application.
(ii) Mr. Ingale submitted that the applicant/original
defendant is a very big transport company in the State of
Maharashtra, who has many offices all over the State even then
they are not ready to vacate the suit premises of the Plaintiff,
when they can easily move into their own premises.
(iii) Mr. Ingale submitted that in spite of two eviction
decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff, they are not able to enjoy
the fruits of decree.
(iv) Mr. Ingale submitted that the suit premises is consisting
cra574-22.doc
of a godown admeasuring 51 ft. x 40 ft. and two rooms
admeasuring 15 ft. x 18 ft., and monthly rent is only Rs.500 per
month. In contrast, the landlord is in possession is only two rooms
admeasuring 60 ft. x 18 ft.
(v) Mr Ingale submitted that the Original
Plaintiff/Landlord has two sons and one daughter. The need as
pressed was that for the two sons and daughter.
(vi) Mr. Ingale submitted that the Plaintiff No.1 - Ravindra
Kale was the elder son of original landlord had entered into the
witness box and had narrated his requirement of the Plaintiff. The
said witness box was cross-examined however, nothing contrary
would be plot on record by the Defendant - Lanlord.
(vii) So also the Plaintiff No.2 - Ramesh Khade had entered
into the witness box was for the purpose of proving the
requirement of the plaintiff landlord. Even in his cross-
examination nothing could be brought on record by the
Defendant.
(viii) So also the evidence of son of Plaintiff No.1 i.e. Rohit
were recorded for the purpose to prove the requirement of the
cra574-22.doc
Plaintiff - landlord he said witness box was cross-examined but
the Defendant was not able to bring on record any facts.
(ix) On behalf of the Defendant-Tenant only one Mr. Ashok
Jadhav had entered into the witness box to lead evidence on
behalf of the defendant in his cross-examination, he admitted that
the Defendant is having 102 branches and so also they owned 300
trucks and they had purchased commercial premises for their
business at Vakharbaug, Sangali and also at Mahavir Nagar,
Sangli admeasuring 8500 sq. mtr the said premises was at least
three times bigger in size than the suit premises at Madhav Nagar.
Both Courts have concurrently held that the Plaintiff had proved
the ground of bona fide requirement, therefore, this Court should
not entertain the present Civil Revision Application.
(x) Mr. Ingale further submitted that there is no question
of suppression on the part of the Plaintiff about the landlord in
possession of two rooms next to the suit premises. He submitted
that the Plaintiffs are aware from day one that the Defendant is in
possession of two rooms next to the suit premises. The Plaintiff
has never disputed this fact.
cra574-22.doc
(xi) Mr. Ingale submitted that once defendant is aware
about the premises available with the Plaintiff, there will be no
question of suppression, as held by the Supreme Court in the
judgment of M. L. Prabhakar v/s. Rajiv Singal reported in (2001)
2 SCC 355 and Ram Narain Arora v/s. Aasha Rani & Ors.
reported in (1999) 2 SCC 141.
(xii) Mr. Ingale also relied upon the judgment of Bombay
High Court in Balwant P. Doshi v/s. Shantaben Dhirajlal Shah &
Anr. 2002 (4) Mh.L.J 473 wherein it was held that the His Court
the landlord who is staying in rental premises, if desires to stay in
his owned accommodation then the Court as a rule should not
refuse the decree and he also relied upon the judgment of Abid-
Ul-Islam v/s. Inder Sain Dua reported in (2022) 6 SCC 30.
wherein it was held that the High Court is not expected to
substitute and supplant. Its view with that of Trial Court while
exercising Appellate Jurisdiction.
(xiii) Mr. Ingal also referred on the judgment of M. L.
Prabhakar v/s. Rajiv Singal reported in (2001) 2 SCC 355 and
Ram Narain Arora v/s. Aasha Rani & Ors. reported in (1999) 2
cra574-22.doc
SCC 141 and Bombay High Court in Balwant P. Doshi v/s.
Shantaben Dhirajlal Shah.Anr. reported in 2002 (4) Mh.L.J 473
and judgment of Bombay High Court in Sara Rauf & Anr v/s.
Durgashankar Ganeshlal Shroff & Ors. Reported in 2007 (4)
Mh.L.J 129 and the judgment of Bombay High Court in Rukmini
Motiram Kshirsagar v/s. Manorambai Mallikarjun Bagale reported
in (2020) 2 Mah LJ 756.
ANALYSIS and CONCLUSION
11. I have heard both the counsels for the parties and I
have gone through the documents on record.
12. The Suit was filed by the Plaintiff for eviction on the
ground of bona fide requirement, the ground of default in
payment of rent and the change of user. The suit premises
consists of godown and two rooms. The tenant, who is the
applicant herein is well known transport company in the State of
Maharashtra known as M/s. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd.
13. The Trial Court decreed the suit only on the ground of
cra574-22.doc
'Bonafide Requirement'. The Appellate Court dismissed the
Appeal of the Tenant/Transport Company thereby confirming the
ground of bona fide requirement. The present Civil Revision
application challenges the concurrent findings recorded by both
the Courts.
14. The Trial Court and Appellate Court were satisfied with
the evidence recorded by Plaintiff No.1 (b), Plaintiff No. 1 (c) and
son of Plaintiff No.1 (b); and has granted a decree of eviction on
the ground of bona fide requirement.
15. The need as pressed by the Plaintiff in the plaint that of
requirement for the purpose of sons and daughter of the original
plaintiff i.e. Plaintiff No.1 (a), 1 (b) and 1 (c). The said witnesses
of the Plaintiff in their evidence have categorically stated about
their requirement. They have stated that the Plaintiff No.1 (b) is
carrying on his business of an agency for which purpose he does
not have sufficient godown and shop premises for storage of oil
barrels for doing the business. Therefore, he cannot expand his
cra574-22.doc
business. He is therefore, required to visit the places of his
customers. He also pleaded that his son is doing the business of
sale of Tata Indica equipment in MIDC in rented premises. So also
Plaintiff No.2 (Ramesh) narrated that he has to expand his cloth
business and for the said purpose he requires the suit premises.
The said witnesses also gave details of the premises in occupation
of tenant transport company. The Plaintiff witness No.3 (Rohit)
also narrated that he is doing business of Tata Tele
Communication, mobile shop in rented premises in MIDC area
and he intends to start the said business in near by Sangli city.
16. It is also come in evidence that the Plaintiff transport
company has around 102 branches and are owning around 300
trucks and their share capital is of rupees Two Crore. It is also
come on record in the evidence that the Defendant transport
company has purchased commercial premises of its own at
Vakharbaug, Sangli and also at Mahavir Nagar, Sangli,
admeasuring 8500 sq.ft. It has also been admitted, in the cross-
examination by Defendant witness that the acquired premises of
cra574-22.doc
the tenant is 3 times bigger in size then that the suit premises.
17. The Trial Court and Appellate Court have considered
this evidence on record and have decreed the suit of the Plaintiff.
I do not find infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees
passed on the grounds of bonafide requirement.
18. As regards the judgment of Kshirsagar (supra) the
Single Judge of this Court considered the facts on record, wherein
the landlord sons were carrying out their business by selling
articles on a carts and they have seeking possession of the suit
premises, being a shop, the Single Judge of this Court confirming
the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. So also in the
judgment of Sara Rauf (supra). This Court considered the facts on
record and held there was no suppression on the part of the
landlord and requirement of the landlord subsisted even though
another premises was handed over in an execution decree.
19. The judgment of this Court in Sitaram (supra) this
Court held that there was no sufficient evidence and therefore,
cra574-22.doc
this Court rejected the suit of the landlord. In the judgment of
Tarachand (supra) this Court was dealing with the situation
where there was a clear suppression of facts by the landlord. In
the judgment of Paturkar (supra) the facts in the said judgment
are quite different. Therefore, in view of the suppression of facts
the suit of the landlord was dismissed.
20. In the light of the above analysis, in my opinion I find
no perversity in both the judgments and decree passed on
grounds of Bonafide Requirement. Hence, this Civil Revision
Application deserve to be dismissed.
21. This Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No cost.
22. Six weeks time is granted to the applicant to vacate the
suit premises.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
