Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Sampatrao Chhajed vs Ajit Jaiwantrao Bhise on 18 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:2700
1 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2023
APPLICANT Santosh s/o Sampatrao Chhajed,
Aged about 57 years, Occupation:
Business, Shubham Photo Studio,
R/o Bhise Complex, Datta Chowk,
Yavatmal, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT Ajit Jaiwantrao Bhise,
Aged about 38 years, Occupation :
Service, R/o Shivaji Nagar,
Near Vivekanand School, Yavatmal,
Tah. & District Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amol B. Patil, counsel for applicant.
Mr Anup Dhore, counsel for respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSE FOR ORDER : 29/01/2025
DATE OF DECISION : 18/03/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
rkn
2 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
3. The judgment and decree passed in Small Causes Suit
No. 7/2022 dated 05/09/2018 by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Yavatmal, is under challenge in the present revision
application. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
original nomenclature.
4. Plaintiff is the landlord, and the defendant is the
tenant of the suit premises. The subject matter of suit is the shop
Nos. 2 and 4 from the northern side of the commercial complex
and other spaces like the godown and hall at the 1st floor
constructed over the land bearing Extension No. 38/D, Survey No.
16, admeasuring 3383 Sq.Mtrs. The plaintiff has filed suit for
eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. As per the
contention of the plaintiff, he became the owner of the suit
property on the basis of the deed executed by his grandfather. The
suit property was also given on rent by his grandfather by entering
into an agreement to defendant for 11 months, which was
extended from time to time. As per the agreement, the grandfather
of the plaintiff received Rs. 1,00,000/- as a deposit, and the
rkn
3 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
plaintiff was getting Rs. 2486/- towards rent.
5. It is further contended by the plaintiff that though he
asked the defendant to execute another agreement after the death
of his grandfather, the defendant has not turned up. Thus, the
defendant is residing unauthorizedly and illegally in the suit
premises. Now, the plaintiff requires suit premises for his personal
use, as his wife intending to start a new business. The suit is filed
on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) of
the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and for Means Profit.
6. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the
suit is not tenable on the basis of an unregistered agreement. The
ground of bonafide requirement is false. The defendant is running
his business in suit premises, and if a decree of eviction is passed,
then more hardship would be caused to the defendant rather than
the plaintiff. It is further contended that the suit is filed only to
extract more rent.
7. In support of the contention, the plaintiff as well as
the defendant has adduced their respective evidence and also
relied upon the document like agreement and notice. After
appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit. The
rkn
4 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
unsuccessful defendant challenged the said judgment and decree
in Rent Appeal bearing No. 1/2018 before the District Judge,
Yavatmal, which also came to be dismissed on 06/05/2023.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
passed by the Small Causes Court in Suit No. 7/2022 and in Rent
Appeal bearing No. 01/2018 decided on 06/05/2023, the present
revision petition is preferred.
9. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Amol B. Patil for the
defendant/petitioner, who submitted that the suit is filed on the
ground of bonafide requirement. Initially, the plaintiff/respondent
issued a notice, wherein no ground of bonafide requirement was
raised. The plaintiff became an owner with his brother and sister,
and they are not parties to the suit.
10. He further submitted that the plaintiff has admitted
during cross-examination that he has not mentioned his bonafide
requirement. The cross-examination of the plaintiff further shows
that the plaintiff is not residing at Yavatmal, where the property is
situated, but he is residing at Amravati along with his family
members. This suit appears to have been filed solely to extract
higher rent.
rkn
5 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
11. He further submitted that bank statements show that
the plaintiff claimed that he had obtained the loan, but the
amount shown in the statement fluctuated, and it is not a term
loan. Moreover, the rent agreement is not registered, which is
required to be registered compulsorily, and therefore, the said
agreement cannot be considered. In the absence of a written
agreement, submission of the tenant to be accepted.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted
that the scope of the revision is very limited. The cross-
examination of the defendant shows that he has no license to run
the said photo studio. The landlord is the best judge of his
requirement. The ownership of the plaintiff is established. No
notice is required under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act and Means Profit, 1999, and thus there is no perversity
in the order passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court, and therefore, the revision is devoid of merits and liable to
be dismissed.
13. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the
evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the fact that the suit
property, i.e. Shop Nos. 2 and 4 from the northern side of the
rkn
6 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
commercial complex and other spaces like a godown and hall on
the first floor constructed over land bearing Extension No. 38/D,
Survey No. 16 admeasuring 3383 Sq. Mtr is originally owned by
the grandfather of the plaintiff. The grandfather of the plaintiff
entered into an agreement with the defendant for giving the said
premises on rent for the period of 11 months. The said agreement
was extended from time to time on various occasions, and
thereafter, the death of the grandfather of the plaintiff took place
in the year 2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his brother and sister
became owners of the suit property. The plaintiff was looking after
the affairs of the suit property, and the defendant has also paid the
rent amount in his account. Now, the suit is filed by the plaintiff
for bonafide requirement as his wife wants to run a business in the
suit premises.
14. In support of the contention, the plaintiff examined
himself by filing an affidavit of examination-in-chief vide Exhibit
19. He reiterated the contention that the suit property is required
by him for his personal use. Now he has performed the marriage,
and his wife intends to start a business. Due to which, his wife can
contribute to the family affairs, and he can also repay the loan,
rkn
7 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
which is obtained by him. He has also filed on record the account
extract of his loan account.
15. It is further testified by him that after the death of his
grandfather, the defendant has not executed any agreement. Thus,
he is residing illegally and unauthorizedly. The defendant has
contested the claim of the plaintiff by cross-examining him. The
plaintiff admitted that he is serving in G.C. College at Chandur
Bazar and residing at Amravati at his sister's house, but he denied
that his wife is also residing along with him at Amravati.
16. He further admits that there is no partition between
him and his brother, but they are residing separately. Three shops
are given to Dr. Kamble, and Dr. Kamble is not paying him any
rent. Thus, an attempt was made that though there is another
tenant, the plaintiff is not claiming any possession of the other
tenant. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in his suit
what type of business his wife would run, and he is indebted.
Thus, from the cross-examination, it is tried to bring on record that
there is no bonafide requirement, but only to extract higher rent;
this suit is filed. Besides the oral evidence, the plaintiff placed
reliance on Will Exhibit 24, Bank Statement Exhibit 25, Office
rkn
8 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
Copy of the Notice Exhibit 26, and Postal Acknowledgment Exhibit
No. 27.
17. The defendant has also adduced the evidence and
reiterated as per his pleadings and written statement. During
cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that he is unable to
place on record his license as to Studio. He is also unable to obtain
the copy of the said license from the Government Labour Officer.
He also admits that he has not renewed the said license or he is
unable to recollect when he has renewed the same. He has also
denied his signature on the agreement, which is executed between
the grandfather of the plaintiff and him. He admitted that prior to
the filing of the suit, the plaintiff had asked him for the execution
of a new agreement, but said agreement was not executed by him.
On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the
plaintiff claimed that he is in need of bonafide requirement and
therefore, the tenant be evicted and possession of the suit property
be handed over to him. After appreciation of the evidence, the
learned trial Court held that the plaintiff succeeded in showing his
bonafide requirement.
18. The plaintiff has come with a case that he required
rkn
9 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
premises for bonafide requirement, and therefore, he claimed
possession of the suit property under Section 16(1)(g) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In view of Section 16(g), the
landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if
the Court is satisfied that the premises are reasonably and
bonafidely required by the landlord for occupation by himself or
by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where
the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the
premises are required for occupation for the purpose of trust. The
plaintiff has raised the ground that he required the suit premises
for starting a business by his wife. It is well settled that the
landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. It is for
him to decide how, in what manner, he should live. If he desires to
beneficially enjoy his own property, then the tenant has no right to
dictate any conditions to him.
19. The term 'requirement' is discussed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Feroz Desai Vs Chandrakant Patel [AIR 1974 SC
1059], wherein it is observed that the term 'requires' in Section
13(1) (g) correctly means that there must be an element of need
and not mere desire before a landlord can be said to "require" the
rkn
10 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
premises for his own use and occupation, and arrived at the
finding that the landlord reasonably and bonafidely requires the
premises for his own use and occupation. The finding is to be a
finding of fact. What is necessary is that he should need it for his
own use and occupation. There is no dispute as to the fact that
there was an unregistered agreement between the grandfather of
the plaintiff and the defendant.
20. Learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. A.B. Patil
vehemently submitted that the agreement is not a registered
agreement and therefore, it is not an evidence. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on Anwar Noormohammaed Pirani
Vs Santosh Gajanan Naskulwar [2019 SCC Online Bom 5176],
wherein this Court has considered that the Registration Act would
apply as per Section 55 of the said Act, insofar as the procedural
aspect of the registration of such an agreement is concerned,
including the office of the Registrar where such an agreement
would be registered and other such specific requirements on the
procedural side reflected in various provisions of the Registration
Act. The mandatory requirement of registration of such an
agreement clearly applies in full force, notwithstanding the option
rkn
11 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
of not registering an agreement pertaining to a period less than
one year under Section 18 of the Registration Act. The penal
provision and consequences under Section 55(3) of the said Act,
upon the landlord for contravening the section, are also crucial.
These consequences indicate that notwithstanding any law in force
exempting registration of such an agreement executed for a period
of less than one year, the landlord has to get such an agreement
registered.
21. It is further held that Section 55(2) of the said Act
assumes significance because when the said agreement could not
be relied upon, the contentions of the respondent as the tenant
regarding the terms and conditions subject to which the suit
property had been given to him by the petitioner were to prevail
unless proved otherwise. Applying Sections 55(1) and 55(2) of the
aforesaid Act to the facts of the present case, the contention of the
respondent in respect of the aforesaid tenancy prevailed, and,
therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the
decree passed by the Trial Court.
22. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted
that Order-VII Rule 11(d) of the Code provides that a plaint shall
rkn
12 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law. Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999, mandates that the tenancy agreement for leave
and license or letting of any premises, entered into between the
landlord and the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be, after
the commencement of the Act, shall be in writing and shall be
registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The consequences of
failure to reduce the tenancy agreement in writing and secure its
registration are prescribed in Sub-Section 3. In the absence of a
written and registered agreement, the contention as regards the
terms and conditions subject to which the premises are being given
to the tenant, as contended by the tenant, shall have to be
accepted. Section 55 nowhere provides for any other consequences
for failure on the part of the landlord to get the agreement drawn
in writing or getting the same registered, except those provided in
sub-section 3 of Section 50. Thus, he submitted that failure to
secure the agreement of tenancy would not affect the case of the
plaintiff.
23. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on
Shishkant Ramrao Kulkarni vs Nirmala Vasantrao Gore [Civil
rkn
13 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
Revision Application No. 07/2011 decided on 19/04/2011
(Aurangabad Bench)]. Upon reviewing the provisions of Section
55 along with Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property
Act, it becomes evident that Section 106 establishes a rule of
evidence concerning the duration of certain leases. In the absence
of any contract, local law, or usage to the contrary, a lease of
immovable property, for purposes other than agricultural or
manufacturing, is deemed to be a lease from month to month.
However, leases of immovable property for agricultural or
manufacturing purposes, unless there is an agreement, local law,
or usage to the contrary, are deemed to be leases from year to year.
This is a rule of evidence, all leases of immovable properties are to
be deemed, in the eye of the law, to be month-to-month. If any
person alleges or claims to the contrary, i.e. in other words, if any
person alleges or asserts a lease, particularly a lease to be a fixed-
term lease on to the yearly lease, he has to prove the same by
legal, valid, and reliable evidence. This must be done while
considering the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of
Property Act, along with the relevant provisions of the Registration
Act and the Evidence Act.
rkn
14 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
24. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides
that a lease for a fixed term or for a term of more than one year or
for a year-to-year or reasonable yearly rent can be made only by a
registered instrument, while all other leases of immovable
property can be made either by a registered instrument or by an
oral agreement accompanied with delivery of possession. Thus, the
provision of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act by use of
expression 'only' indicates that the legislature or the parliament
intended to prescribe the specific mode for making of the term
lease for more than one year or reserving yearly rent.
25. It is well settled principal of law as laid down by the
Supreme Court of India in the case of State Of Uttar Pradesh vs
Singhara Singh And Others [AIR 1964 SC 358] as well as Nazir
Ahmed Vs King Empreor [AIR 1936 PC 253] when the law
prescribes a certain mode or specific mode or for doing a thing or
certain mode of exercising certain power of authority or right or
performing certain act, then that act or thing as caught to be done
in that manner alone and not otherwise. Other modes in respect
thereof are necessarily and by necessary implication taken to have
forbidden and closed. Apart from the general principle, further use
rkn
15 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
of the expression "only" after the expression "can be made" and
before the expression "by a registered instrument" indicates the
legislative intent that the legislature has intended that a fixed-term
lease for a period of more than a year of a lease from year to year
or serving the yearly rent is to be and can be made in no other
manner than by entering into the contract of tenancy by a
registered lease deed. The legal position is that there can be no
lease for a fixed term exceeding one year if it has been entered
into either orally or through a deed that is not registered.
According to the Registration Act, any lease for a term exceeding
one year must be executed as a compulsorily registrable document.
26. In the case of Dinaji And Ors vs Daddi And Ors [AIR
1990 SC 1153], the Supreme Court has considered the effect of an
unregistered document, which is required to be registered under
Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, or under any of the
provisions under the Transfer of Property Act. It was observed that
such a document will not avail to create, declare, assign, limit, or
extinguish any right, title, or interest in or to the immovable
property mentioned in the document.
27. In other words, an unregistered document cannot be
rkn
16 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
used for the purpose of establishing that the document created a
declared or assigned or limited or extinguished right to immovable
property. However, the trend of the judicial decisions or judicial
opinion is to the effect that unregistered documents which are
compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act
can be looked into only for collateral purposes.
28. In Smt. Janabai Govindrao Korche & Anr.Vs.Women's
Education Society & Ors. [2009 (5) All MR 926] , wherein also this
Court has dealt with the issue as to the non-registered lease deed,
and it is held that the agreement is required to be compulsorily
registered by virtue of the provision of Section 55 of the Act. If the
tenancy is created after coming into force of the Act, it will require
registration. The section does not say that the tenancy shall
become void in absence of registration. Non-registration may, at
the most, attract a penalty, but it does not render the lease void.
29. In Shishikant Ramrao Kulkarni referred (supra)
wherein also, this Court by referring its earlier judgment in Raj
Prasanna Kondur vs Arif Taher Khan And Ors. [2005(4) Bom CR
383] has held that the right of the landlord under Section 24 to
get the person evicted from the premises of expiry of the license is
rkn
17 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
not curtailed in any manner on account of absence of the
agreement being in writing or registered as contemplated by
Section 55 of the Act. Section 55 of the Act nowhere provides for
"any other consequences" for failure on the part of the landlord to
get the agreement drawn in writing or getting the same registered,
except those provided in Sub-Section 3 of Section 55. In other
words, on account of the failure of the landlord to get the
agreement registered, he cannot be precluded or prohibited from
presenting a plaint in Civil Court seeking recovery of rent. The
consequence of failure to record the agreement in writing and to
get it registered puts the tenant in an advantageous position at
first, as his contentions as regards the terms and conditions of
tenancy will have to be accepted unless proved otherwise. Section
55 of the Act nowhere puts an embargo in respect of
entertainability of any civil action by the landlord either for
recovery of rent or for recovery of possession of the tenanted
premises on account of his failure to secure an agreement of
tenancy in the form as contemplated by Section 55(1) of the Act.
30. In view of the observations of this Court in both
decisions, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant
rkn
18 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
that in the absence of the compliance of Section 55, there cannot
be a civil action is not sustainable. The other ground raised by the
defendant is that the ground of bonafide requirement was not
raised by the plaintiff in the notice. The plaintiff has also admitted
during his cross-examination that in the notice, he has not
mentioned the bonafide requirement.
31. Learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on
Madhukar S/O Laxman Umalkar vs Keshao S/O Laxman
Shilawant [2005(3) Mh.L.J.947], wherein it is held that insofar as
the second ground is concerned, perusal of Section 16 would show
that when eviction of tenant is sought on any of the ground
mentioned under Section 16(1) of the said Act, no notice is
required. It is clear from the perusal of Section 16(1) that if the
landlord satisfies the conditions mentioned in the grounds
available under Section 16(1) of the said Act, he can directly file a
suit for possession.
32. In the facts of the present case, though the notice is
issued and the ground is not mentioned, the notice itself is not
required, and therefore the contention of the learned counsel of
the defendant that the ground of bonafide requirement is not
rkn
19 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
raised in the notice has no consequence, as the notice itself is not
required, and the civil action is maintainable even in the absence
of the notice. Therefore, merely because it is not mentioned in the
notice that the plaintiff requires the premises for bonafide
requirements is not sufficient to discard the claim of the plaintiff of
his bonafide requirements.
33. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of
his residential requirement. It is for him to decide how, in what
manner, he/she should live. If he desires to beneficially enjoy his
own property, then the tenant has no right to dictate any
conditions.
34. In Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And Ors [2007
(4) SCC 465], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
landlord is the best judge of his requirements and Courts have no
concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner
he should live. The question of satisfaction on the basis of proof
and reasonable and bonafide requirement is to be proved.
35. In the light of the above proposition of law, if the
evidence of the plaintiff is considered, he has reiterated that he
has obtained the loan, which is substantiated by the bank
rkn
20 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
statement Exhibit No. 25. He specifically stated that his wife wants
to run a business in the said suit premises, and if he starts a
business in the said suit premises, she would contribute in the
family affairs as well as repay the loan. During his cross-
examination, it is also brought on record that the wife of the
plaintiff is an educated lady, and she studied upto MSc and is
doing any job. Thus, cross-examination also shows that the wife of
the plaintiff is an educated lady and acquires the qualification to
run a business.
36. On the contrary, the evidence of the defendant shows
that he is running Shubham Photo Studio in the said suit premises,
but his cross-examination shows that he doesn't have the license as
he is unable to produce the said license before the Court. He
specifically admitted that the said license is not with him and also
does not hold a certificate copy of the said license, and therefore,
he is unable to produce it. He also admits that he is unable to
recollect when he renewed his license. Thus, this cross-
examination itself sufficiently raised a question as to whether,
really, he is running the photo studio in the said suit premises, as
he is not holding the license for the same. His cross-examination
rkn
21 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
further shows that though the plaintiff asked him to execute the
new agreement, he has not turned up towards the same. Thus, the
agreement initially was with the grandfather and the defendant.
The said agreement was not renewed by him. Therefore, his
possession of the suit property appears to be illegal and
unauthorized.
37. Section 16(1)(g) of the Rent Act entitled the landlord
to recover possession of the tenanted premises. If the same are
reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord for occupation
by himself by any person for whose benefit that premises was held.
Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999,
further provides that where premises are reasonably and
bonafidely required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of
demolition, then, as such, demolition is to be paid for the purpose
of erecting a new building on the premises sought to be
demolished in subject to certain conditions set out in Sub-Sections
4, 5, 6 and 7 and Section 17 of the Rent Act, the Court may decree
an eviction.
38. It is a statutory obligation on the Court to weigh the
evidence and assess comparative hardship from both the angles.
rkn
22 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
Already, it is noted that the landlord has claimed that he requires a
suit premises as his wife intends to run a business. It also came out
in the cross-examination that the wife of the plaintiff is educated
and jobless. Therefore, the contention of the landlord that he
requires a premises for reasonable and genuine need of the suit
premises for starting the business cannot be ruled out. Obviously,
the landlord has the right to use his premises as per his choice,
being the owner of the suit property. On the other hand, it came in
the evidence of the defendant also; there are other shops which
are vacant, which he can obtain on a rent. Whether the defendant
really runs a photo studio or not is in question, as his cross-
examination shows that he is not holding any license, as he is
unable to produce it. Thus, the genuine need of the plaintiff for
starting his business came on record when both situations, the
plaintiff and defendant, are put in the stake. It is evident that the
tenant is not running his business, as he has not made any efforts
either to obtain the license or renew the license.
39. Moreover, his cross-examination shows that the other
premises are available for him to run his photo shop. Therefore,
the contention that the tenant would suffer much hardship is not
rkn
23 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
tenable. On the contrary, the landlord has obtained the loan. His
wife intends to start his business, since she is educated and jobless
and can be considered, and by comparing the same, the hardship
of the plaintiff is more severe than that of the tenant. Merely
because the tenant will be ousted from the premises itself cannot
be considered to be a hardship and a valid ground for refusing the
landlord a decree for eviction. In deciding the extent of the
hardship, the defendant has to prove its relative advantages or
disadvantages, which they may suffer. The owner of the property
cannot be denied eviction merely on the ground that tenant has no
other premises. It is the duty of the tenant to search for the
premises, but in fact it is evident that the tenant is quite casual, as
he has not obtained the said license to run his photo studio.
40. As already observed earlier, the landlord is the best
judge of his needs. The bonafide needs are subject to object
scrutiny, but once a case of landlord premises is required for
bonafide purpose, is held established, even if alternative premises
are available; the choice to occupy a particular place is subject to
exercise. Thus, what is required to be established under the
provision of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
rkn
24 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
1999, is that premises are reasonably and bonafidely required by
the landlord for occupation by himself.
41. The word 'requires' means that there must be an
element of need before a landlord for his own use and occupation.
The evidence adduced sufficiently shows that the landlord has
established his need to claim relief under the provision of Section
16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
42. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent
finding that the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the
tenant. The tenant has to establish by adducing evidence or
pointing towards the circumstances that in case of passing of an
eviction decree, he would suffer greater hardship. While deciding
the issue of bonafide requirement both Courts have rightly
observed that, though the landlord owns certain premises,
however those cannot be considered for deciding the issue of
hardship. Admittedly, the suit premises that two shops are owned
by the landlord. His wife intends to run the business. The premises
is situated in the heart of the city. It is a specific case of the
landlord that, as he has obtained the loan, if his wife runs a
business, it would contribute in the family and be helpful to him to
rkn
25 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
repay the loan. There can be no dispute that the wife, who is an
educated lady, can run the business in the suit premises. The
burden lies on the tenant to prove that greater hardship will be
caused to him if the order of eviction is made. In case of eviction
under Section 16(1) of the Rent Act, the tenant will be liable to be
evicted. It is not by itself hardship to the tenant; the decree of
urgency or the intensity of bonafide need assumes significance. So
it is to be seen as to what effort the tenant has made in searching
for other premises or running his business at any other place.
43. It is a matter of appreciation, whether the tenant has
made any genuine efforts to search the premises, as he was
shadow of an eviction decree since the eviction suit was pending.
The tenant in his evidence has not specifically stated about his
efforts. On the contrary, his admission shows that though the
plaintiff asked him for a renewal of the agreement, he has not
renewed it.
44. Moreover, his cross-examination further shows that he
has neither renewed his license nor is he holding the license. It is
the statutory obligation of the Court to weigh the comparative
rkn
26 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
hardship from both ends. Already, it is noted that the landlord has
proved a reasonable and genuine need for the suit premises for the
expansion of business. Obviously, the landlord has the right to use
his premises as per his choice, being the owner of the property. On
the other hand, the tenant has not shown any circumstances of
how the hardship would cause him. If the tenant was genuine and
continued his business for his survival, he would have obtained the
license or searched the premises in any part of the city, but he did
not. When both the situations are approved in the stake, it is
evident that the tenant was given opportunity to protect his
business by searching for another premises. Therefore, the result
would be that the tenant would not suffer that much hardship,
which was right to be canvassed. On the other hand, when the
landlord has proved his ground of reasonable need by making a
comparison, the hardship would be caused to the landlord if the
decree of eviction has not been passed.
45. The defendant has challenged the decree and
concurrent finding of both the Courts by invoking the jurisdiction
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The scope of
revision is very limited under the revisional jurisdiction, this Court
rkn
27 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
cannot reassess the evidence. The finding of the trial Court and
First Appellate Court is on appreciation of evidence. Being a
finding of fact, which is not open to interference under the
revisional jurisdiction.
46. The trial Court considered the aspect of the plaintiff's
bonafide need, and its finding was upheld by the appellate Court
in the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. It is impermissible for
this Court to reassess the evidence on record and reach a
conclusion different from that concurrently arrived at by both
lower Courts. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the
concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate
Court on the issue of bonafide requirement.
47. After considering the entire conspectus of the case, I
am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court and the
appellate Court in both the suit and the appeal, no interference is
called for by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the
Code, and therefore, the revision application deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
a] The Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
rkn
28 CIVIL REVISION 85.2023.odt
b] The defendant is granted time upto 03/04/2025 to
vacate the possession of the suit premises.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/03/2025 18:44:45
