Bombay High Court
Suganmal Sidhumal Sindhi Deceased ... vs Mustafa Abbasbhai Bohari on 3 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:17174
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2025
Suganmal Sindhumal Sindhi
Deceased, through his LRs-
Ishwari Suganmal Sindhi-
Deceased, through his Legal Heirs>
1) Ashokkumar Suganmal Sindhi,
Age : 53 years, Occu: Business,
2) Rajendrakumar Suganmal Sindhi,
Age : 51 years, Occu: Business,
3) Kanhaiyalal Suganmal Sindhi,
Age : 48 years, Occu: Business.
Applicant No. 1 to 3 R/o Plot No.R-5,
Room No.1, Opposite Central Bank,
Kumarnagar, Sakri Road, Dhule,
District Dhule.
4) Indirabai Vinodkumar Sindhi,
Age : 56 years, Occ: Household;
R/o C/o Pooja Dresses,
Prop. Vinodkumar Sindhi,
Outside Railway Station, Hotel Punjab,
Ch. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad).
District Ch. Sambhajinagar. .. Applicants
Versus
Mustafa Abbasbhai Bohari,
Age : 54 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o: Burhani Shopping Complex,
Datta Mandir Chowk, Deopur,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondent
*****
[1]
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
* Mr. Rajendraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Vikhyati Jain
i/by Mr. Devang R. Deshmukh
Advocate for the Applicants.
* Mr. Subodh P. Shah
Advocate for the Respondent.
*****
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
Date On Which
Arguments were heard : 26th June 2025
Date On Which
Judgment is Pronounced : 3rd July 2025
JUDGMENT :
. Heard both sides.
2. Applicant - Tenant is assailing judgment and decree of
eviction passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit
No.199/2015 which is confirmed by Lower Appellate Court in
Regular Civil Appeal No.80/2023 on 14.08.2024. Respondent had
filed suit for eviction under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent
Control Act (Hereinafter referred to as Act for the sake of brevity
and convenience) on the ground of default, bonafide requirement
and hardship.
3. The subject matter is a shop measuring 12 x 50 sqr. mtrs.
which is part and parcel of City Survey No.1452 situated at Lane
No.2 of Dhule City. It was let out by erstwhile owner Mr. Yashwant
to Applicant - deceased Suganmal Sindhi for running a shop in the
name and style - Shree Glass House. Respondent purchased City
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
Survey No.1452 including the suit property on 07.06.1997. It is
pleaded by the Respondent that suit property had become
dilapidated and notice was also received from Municipal Council
for demolishing the property.
4. It's a case of Respondent that Applicant did not pay rent
from 01.01.1997. The possession was required for demolishing the
property. The relations between the parties were strained.
Respondent wanted the suit property for his business and for
carrying out construction of new building for grocery shop/super
shop. It is further contended that premises in Burhani Complex
which was at Deopur is not convenient as his brother was already
running business therein. His elder son Murtuza also needed the
premises for running business. The location of the suit property is
centrally placed.
5. It is further contended that Applicant does not require the
premises. He has City Survey Nos. 1440, 1443 and 1453 to run the
business. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated
20.02.2015. Thereafter suit was filed.
6. Applicant contested the suit on the ground that he runs
business in the suit property which is in structurally good
condition. The rent from 01.01.1997 was deposited in the Court up
to 2014 and further rent was sent by demand draft. It is contended
that City Survey No.1453 belongs to Barkha Rajesh and City
Survey No.1440 is not in his possession. The need shown by the
landlord is false and considering availability of suitable premises
at Burhani Complex and others, no case is made out.
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
7. Both the parties adduced oral evidence and produced
documents indicating availability of the premises as per rival
contentions. Admittedly Applicant resorted to proceeding under
Section 8 of the Act for fixation of the standard rent and permitted
increases. It was contested by the Respondent. Application was
allowed vide order dated 30.08.2011, fixing standard rent at
Rs.250/- payable from January, 1993 and with permitted
increases of 4%.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendraa Deshmukh has placed
on record a paper-book. He would submit that as per the
determination of the standard rent, arrears have been deposited
from 1997 till filing of the suit and there are no arrears. After
filing of the suit also there is punctual payment of rent in the trial
Court and thereafter in the Appellate Court. Hence it is contended
that finding regarding default is perverse. It is further contended
that both the Courts below overlooked that there is a payment of
Rs.260/- per month considering the permitted increases and
finding of arrears of Rs.52,500/- is perverse. It is further
submitted that Respondent is very rich person and is already
running his business at different places in and around Dhule City.
The need is absolutely false and open premises adjourning suit
property bearing CTS No.1452 is already in possession which has
not been constructed by him. It is further contended that the
finding that commercial properties at CTS No.1453/3, 1453/1 and
1440 are in possession of the Applicant is patently illegal.
9. Learned Senior Counsel would advert my attention to
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
admissions secured in the cross-examination of Defendant No.1
i.e. Respondent as well as Defendant No.2. It is submitted that
issue of greater hardship has been incorrectly decided by both the
Courts below. The properties available to the Respondent have not
been taken into account. The goodwill created at the suit property
has been overlooked.
10. Per contra, Mr. Subodh Shah learned Counsel for the
Respondent would support both the judgments. He would submit
that Applicant never paid 4% of the annual increases which was
directed to be paid from January 1993. Payment of Rs.260/- per
month for some period cannot be the compliance of order dated
30.08.2011. It is vehemently contended that no evidence was
placed on record neither in the trial Court, nor in Appellate Court
regarding payment of arrears of rent from 01.01.1997 till June
2015. It is submitted that there is considerable distance between
the suit property and Burhani Complex in which Respondent's
brother is running business. The issue of comparative hardship
has been properly dealt with by both Courts below. It is further
contended that already three premises are available for the
Applicant to run the business and he could have acquired suitable
premises. It is further submitted that no interference is called for
in the concurrent finding of facts.
11. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah relies on following judgments :
(a) Smt. Sulochanabai Kashinath Gujar Vs. Krishnabai
Dhantram Ugvekar and Others, 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 464.
(b) Abdul Gani s/o Sheikh Hasam Vs. Dilip Gopaldas Duwani and
Another, 2022(5) Mh.L.J. 514)
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
(c) Krishna Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi (2014) 9 SCC 309
(d) Ujwalabai @ Meena Shantaram Apte Vs. Namdeo Dnyanoba
Shingare (2001(4) Mh.L.J. 545)
12. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. Both the
Courts below decreed the suit on the ground of default and
bonafide requirement. As per order dated 30.08.2011 passed in
Miscellaneous Civil Application No.53/2007, standard rent of
Rs.250/- was fixed which was payable from January, 1993 with a
rider of annual increases of 4%. Respondent filed suit on
21.07.2015, claiming arrears from 01.01.1997 till filing of the suit
to the tune of Rs.52,500/-.
13. The landlord is entitled to claim possession on the ground of
default of rent and the permitted increases as per Section 15 of the
Act. The ground of default is applicable for rent as well as
permitted increases. Applicant was under obligation to pay rent of
Rs.250/- per month from January, 1993 and from January, 1994,
monthly rent in addition to 4% increases. Likewise the demand of
the Respondent for arrears was from 01.01.1997. The amount of
rent with permitted increases payable from 01.01.1997 was
definitely more than Rs.260/- per month. There is nothing on
record that Applicant paid such arrears. No receipt or any tangible
document is produced on record and proved by the Applicant to
indicate payment of arrears. At-least in the Lower Appellate
Court, Applicant could have resorted to Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
for producing the documentary evidence to show the payment.
Only few photo copies of the receipts were shown which were
neither produced before the trial Court, nor exhibited. That cannot
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
be said to be compliance of payment of arrears of rent and
permitted increases.
14. In this Court also, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendraa S.
Deshmukh has tendered across bar photocopies of few receipts
and applications with orders indicating payment @ Rs.260/- per
month. But these documents do not show payment from January,
1997 to June 2015. There is absolutely no evidence on record for
payment of arrears of rent and permitted increases. Both the
Courts below have rightly held that Respondent is entitled to
decree of eviction on the ground of default.
15. Just because the Respondent-landlord is having immovable
properties at various places and even open premises for
construction, cannot be a ground to castigate his bonafides.
Landlord is the best judge of his need. Neither Court, nor tenant
can impose that landlord should have conducted business in a
particular premises only. Respondent is expanding his business
and requiring premises for the business of his son. He comes up
with a theory that part of CTS No.1452 has become dilapidated
and part of it is open. He is desirous of constructing a building at
that place to accommodate need of his family to run business.
16. It has come on record that Burhani shopping Complex at
Deopur is at about 3.5 kilo meter from the suit premises. At that
place, his brother is running business. The licence of super shoppe
is in the name of his brother. No convincing material is on record
that Respondent is allotted any part part in the Complex and he
can run business. Besides that, it has come on record that
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
Respondent and his five brothers are not in good terms. Those five
brothers are looking after the Complex. The clarification given by
the Respondent in paragraph no.63 of his cross-examination
would be sufficient to infer that there is no premises at Burhani
Complex to run business and even if it is assumed that some
premises is available, it is not possible for the Respondent to
commence any business at that place.
17. There is nothing on record to show that the business of the
family behind Raj Kamal Talkies can be said to be suitable and
available premises for the Respondent. No material is placed on
record to show that it was exclusively owned by Respondent and
in his possession. Although attempts are made by the Applicant to
show that in the vicinity, premises are available for the
Respondent to run business, there is no concrete material on
record to show that the premises are suitable and would satisfy
the need of Respondent. It is trite law that Landlord is the best
judge of his need. I find that both the Courts below have rightly
considered oral and the documentary evidence to conclude that
there is a bonafide requirement. The submission of learned Senior
Counsel has no merit.
18. Both the Courts below have considered the comparative
hardship. It has come on record that a plot in CTS No.1453/3 was
purchased by Applicant which is larger in size than suit property.
It is available for running business. It has come on record that the
said plot is adjacent to the suit property. Their house constructed
at Plot No.644 is also one of the factors considered by the Courts
below.
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
19. It has come on record that Applicant agreed to purchase a
plot at CTS No.1440 and succeeded in Special Civil Suit
No.34/2013 for specific performance of contract. Thus the said
property is also available to the Applicant. I find that Applicant is
of sound financial condition and suitable premises are available
with them which are rightly noted in paragraph no.22 of the
judgment of Lower Appellate Court. Both the Courts below have
rightly dealt with the issue of comparative hardship. Learned
Senior Counsel has referred to the cross-examination of the PW-1
and PW-2, but he is unable to point out any material admission to
show that requirement of landlord is not bonafide. I find that no
case is made out by the Applicant to cause any interference in the
impugned judgment and order.
20. Respondent relies on the judgment in the matter of Smt.
Sulochanabai Kashinath Gujar (supra) for the propositions that
High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as well as it is
prerogative of the landlord to decide about his requirement.
Considering paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment, I find that
no case is made out by the Applicants to cause any interference in
the impugned judgment and decree.
. Further reliance is placed on the matter of Ujwalabai @
Meena Shantaram Apte (supra), my attention is adverted to
paragraph no.5 to buttress the submission that tenant is obliged to
pay rent as well as permitted increases. Following the said
principles, I find that the case is made out by landlord for default.
21. Reliance is relied on the judgment in the matter of Krishna
Kumar Rastogi (supra). I have gone through paragraph nos. 9 and
929.CRA-21-2025.odt
10 which inter-alia referred to judgment of High Court in the
matter of Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155. Both
the Courts below have rightly considered the requirement of the
Respondent-landlord in the wake of the principles laid down in the
judgment.
. Lastly reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of
Abdul Gani s/o Sheikh Hasam (supra). In paragraph no.11 of the
judgment, learned Single Judge reiterated settled legal position
that landlord is the best judge of his bonafide need and when
multiple premises are available, it would be subjective exercise of
landlord. I find that in the case at hand Applicants failed to
establish that alleged alternate premises are suitable to satisfy the
need.
22. In the result, I find no merit in the Civil Revision Application.
Civil Revision Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
23. Civil Application is disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ]
JUDGE
NAJEEB..
