Bombay High Court
Mr.Pranshankar Bhayashankar Rajguru vs Mr. Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma And Ors on 24 October, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:42884
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.564 OF 2024
Pranshankar Bhayashankar
Rajguru ....Applicant
V/s.
Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma and
Ors. ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rakeshkumar R. Tiwari for the Applicant.
Ms. Shweta Sharma for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 24 October 2024.
Judgment:
1) Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the
provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code) to
set up a challenge to the Judgment and Decree dated 19 July 2024
passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing
appeal No.5 of 2023 filed by the Revision Applicant and confirming the
eviction decree dated 17 December 2022 passed by the Small Causes
MEGHA Court in R.A.E. Suit No.24 of 2004.
SHREEDHAR
PARAB
2) Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 claim to be owners and
occupiers of bungalow known as 'Solicitor's Compound ' situated at
land bearing C.T.S. No.436-C of Malad (East) at Solicitor Road, Off.
Rani Sati Marg, Quarry Road, Malad (East), Mumbai -400 097.
___Page No.1 of 7___
24 October 2024
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
Defendant No.1 inducted as a tenant in respect of room No. 2 situated
in the said bungalow admeasuring 200 sq.ft. for monthly rent of
Rs.19.38 by Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2. Plaintiffs filed R.A.E. Suit
No.24 of 2004 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the
ground of bonafide requirement of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2.
Plaintiffs averred in the Plaint that family of Plaintiffs and Defendant
No. 2 is very large and the premises in their possession consisted of
only four single rooms collectively admeasuring 1000/1100 sq.ft. It was
averred that Plaintiff No.1 has one married daughter and two married
sons which forced him to acquire additional accommodation in building
opposite Solicitor's bungalow where two married sons of Plaintiff No.1
reside while Plaintiff continued to reside in single room of Solicitor's
bungalow. That Plaintiff No.2 has three grown up daughters and out of
which one is married and the two unmarried daughters are over 21
years of age. Plaintiff No.2 also has two grown up unmarried sons over
21 years of age, whose marriages were being delayed for want of
availability of sufficient accommodation. It was further averred that
Plaintiff No.3 had one grown up daughter of marriageable age and one
married son and that Plaintiff No.3 was required to acquire additional
accommodation in a building opposite Solicitor's bungalow where he
and his family reside. That Plaintiff No.4 has one school going son aged
15 years and one college going daughter requiring additional premises
for their residence. It was further averred that Defendant No.2, who is
sister of Plaintiffs had two married sons, who themselves had two sons
and one daughter at the time of filing of the Suit. That the son of
Defendant No.2- Alok Sharma and his family were required to reside on
leave and license basis at Tapovan across Wester Express Highway,
Malad (east) and they were not in a position to bear the license fees and
were therefore required to leave the said premises and were residing in
___Page No.2 of 7___
24 October 2024
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
a room in the office premises belonging to the Plaintiff No.3 at
Motibaug Apartments. That second son of Defendant No.2 Anupam
Sharma was residing in a room on ground floor of Solicitor's bungalow
with his family.
3) On the above broad bonafide requirements, Plaintiffs sought
eviction of Defendant No.1 pleading that he and his family members
had secured to big flats on ownership basis at Panchsheel Society,
Raheja Township at 'Tapovan View' building. Though the allegations of
unwillingness to pay rent, enclosure of verandah and non-user were
also raised it appears that the Suit has ultimately contested on the
ground of bonafide requirement alone.
4) Defendant No.1 appeared in the Suit and filed his written
statement contesting the Suit by amending the written statement. He
also raised a plea that the land on which the suit premises is situated
is declared as slum and that therefore the Small Causes Court did not
have jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. It appears that Defendant No.1
also filed additional written statement.
5) After considering the pleadings of the parties, Small Causes
Court framed issues relating to bonafide requirement of Plaintiffs and
Defendant No.2 and comparative hardship. Issue relating to
maintainability of the Suit was also framed. After amendment of the
written statement, issue relating to Suit being barred by the provisions
of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was also framed. Parties led evidence in
support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings,
documentary and oral evidence, Small Causes Court proceeded to
___Page No.3 of 7___
24 October 2024
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
decree the Suit by accepting the ground of bonafide requirement and by
answering the issue of comparative hardship in favour of Plaintiffs and
against the Defendant No.1. The Small Causes Court accordingly
directed Defendant No.1 to handover possession of the suit premises to
the Plaintiffs by decree dated 17 December 2022. Defendant No.1 filed
Appeal No.5 of 2023 challenging the eviction decree dated 17 December
2022. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has however
dismissed the appeal of Defendant No.1 by Judgment and Order dated
19 July 2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present
Civil Revision Application.
6) I have heard Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for
Revision Applicant/Defendant No.1 and Ms. Shweta Sharma, the
learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Plaintiffs. I have also
gone through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court and also gone through the evidence placed on record
alongwith Revision Application.
7) The short issue that arises for consideration in the present
Revision Application is whether Plaintiffs prove the case of bonafide
requirement for seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises
from Defendant No.1. In the present case, Plaintiffs and their sister
(Defendant No.2) are the landlords in respect of the suit premises.
Therefore, bonafide requirement of the four plaintiffs as well as their
sister was pleaded in the Plaint. Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 occupied
four rooms admeasuring about 1000/1100 sq.ft. in Solicitor's bungalow,
in which suit premises are located. Area in possession of Defendant
No.1 is 200 sq.ft. Going by averments of the plaint, there were following
___Page No.4 of 7___
24 October 2024
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
family members of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 at the time of filing of
the Suit:
Plaintiff No.1 One married daughter,
two married sons
Plaintiff No.2 One married daughter,
two unmarried daughters
and
two unmarried sons.
Plaintiff No.3 Two unmarried daughters
and
one married son
Plaintiff No.4 One son and one daughter
Defendant No.2 Two married sons.
8) As disclosed in the Plaint, two married sons of Plaintiff No.1
were residing in additional accommodation acquired in the building
opposite Solicitor's bungalow. Similarly, the married son of Plaintiff
No.3 was also residing in premises opposite Solicitor's bungalow. So far
as Defendant No.2 is concerned, one of her sons Mr. Alok Sharma was
required to take shelter in office premises at Motibaug Apartment.
Except these members of the family, other members apparently reside
in the Solicitor's bungalow.
9) The Trial Court has assessed the evidence on record and has
arrived at a finding that there were as many as 10 to 12 members of the
family of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 who were residing in the
Solicitor's bungalow. Defendant No.1 attempted to set up a case of
acquisition of additional premises by various Plaintiffs. However, as
observed above, residence by some of the family members in other
premises is already disclosed by Plaintiffs in the Plaint itself.
Considering the factual position borne out from the evidence on record,
the Small Causes Court has held that multiple members of family of
___Page No.5 of 7___
24 October 2024
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 were finding it inconvenient to
accommodate themselves in area admeasuring 1100 sq.ft. in Solicitor's
bungalow.
10) So far as Defendant No.1-tenent is concerned, Trial Court has
recorded a finding of fact that Defendant No.1 was not residing in the
Suit premises for a substantial period of time. In paragraph 16 of the
written statement Defendant No.1 admitted that he was residing in the
premises of his sons quiet frequently. Acquisition of premises by sons
of Defendant No.1 is also not under dispute.
11) In my view, the findings recorded by the Trial Court as upheld
by the Appellate Court after appreciation of evidence on record relating
to bonafide requirement of Plaintiffs do not warrant interference in
exercise of revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of
the Code. Mr. Tiwari has not been able to point out any perversity or
palpable error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the
Appellate Court. He has taken me through the cross- examination of
Plaintiffs' witness. However, even in cross-examination Plaintiff's
witness has admitted residence of 10 members residing in area of 1000
sq.ft. In exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction, this Court is not
supposed to re-appreciate the evidence on record and arrive at a finding
different than the one recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts.
The conclusions concurrently reached by the Trial and the Appellate
Court about need of large number of members of the family of Plaintiffs
and Defendant No.2 cannot be disturbed by undertaking the exercise of
re-appreciation of evidence. Defendant No.1 does not seem to be in need
of the suit premises, and he is found to be residing with his sons in
alternate premises. In that view of the matter decree of eviction passed
___Page No.6 of 7___
24 October 2024
Megha 906_cra_564_2024_fc.docx
on the ground of bonafide requirement does not warrant interference by
this Court.
12) I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the
concurrent decrees passed by the Trial and the Appellate Courts. The
Civil Revision Application must fail. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the Applicant/ Defendant No.1 is granted time till 31 December 2024 to
vacate the suit premises subject to the condition of not creating third
party rights.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.7 of 7___
24 October 2024
