Bombay High Court
Sanjay Nemichand Jain vs Rajendra Tyagi Babulla Samudre on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12067
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3326 OF 2023
PETITIONER :- Sanjay Nemichand Jain,
Age 55 years, Occ.- Business,
R/o C/o Jain Travels, Plot No.21, Surendra
Nagar, Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Shri Rajendra Tyagi Babulal Samudre,
Age 61 years, Occ.- Landlord/Private
R/o Plot No.21, Central Railway Co-Operative
Housing Society Layout, Surendra Nagar,
Nagpur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Rathod, Advocate for Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties.
2. This petition is filed by the original tenant being
aggrieved by a decree for eviction passed against him under Section
16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner
had initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the
respondent/landlord seeking a decree for perpetual injunction
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
against forcible dispossession. In the said suit, the
respondent/landlord filed a counter claim for eviction on the
ground of bonafide need.
3. The respondent contended that he was in need of the suit
shop in order to start a beauty parlour for his daughter. The
respondent/landlord has stated that he was earning his livelihood by
driving an auto rickshaw, but due to his advancing age, it has
become difficult for him to continue earning a living by driving an
auto rickshaw. He has stated that, he is blessed with three daughters
and does not have a son. It is stated that since the suit property is
situated in a market area, it will be suitable for his daughter to start
the business of a beauty parlour. It will be pertinent to mention that,
there are pleadings in the counter claim that the tenancy agreement
was to be renewed in the year 2011. The defendant has pleaded that
when he had approached the plaintiff /tenant for execution of a
fresh agreement in the year 2011, the plaintiff/tenant told him a
tenancy agreement was already executed in the year 2004 and
therefore, there was no need to execute new agreement. This 2004
agreement is a forged document, according to defendant.
4. The plaintiff filed a written statement opposing the
counter claim denying the case of bonafide need as set up by the
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
defendant/landlord. It is stated that, the respondent/landlord,
wanted to evict the plaintiff/tenant from the suit property and
therefore, a false case of bonafide need was set up.
5. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the
respective parties and after hearing final arguments, held that the
respondent/landlord had failed to make out case of bonafide need.
The learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the counter
claim for eviction was filed against the plaintiff/tenant only because
he had refused to execute a fresh agreement in the year 2011. The
learned trial Court has also observed that the pleadings in the
counter claim did not indicate as to why the defendant/landlord was
not interested in utilizing the other shops which are owned by him
in the same building for the purpose of so called need and why he
singled out the plaintiff's shop for the purpose of satisfying the
alleged need to start a beauty parlour. The learned trial Court has
also referred to complaints made by the defendant/landlord to
different authorities against the petitioner/tenant. Based on the
evidence on record, the learned trial Court has recorded that the
counter claim for eviction was filed only because the plaintiff/tenant
refused to execute a fresh agreement of leave and license in the year
2011.
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree dismissing the
counter claim for eviction, the respondent/landlord filed appeal
before the learned District Court. The learned District Court has
allowed the counter claim and accordingly passed a decree for
eviction against the plaintiff/tenant on the ground of bonafide need.
7. Perusal of the judgment by the learned Appellate Court
will demonstrate that, the learned First Appellate Court has
recorded the evidence of defendant and his daughter who was
examined in support of the case of bonafide need. The learned First
Appellate Court has recorded that the other three shop blocks were
already in possession of the other tenants. As regards the decision of
the respondent/landlord to choose the shop occupied by the
plaintiff, the learned First Appellate Court has referred to the
deposition of the defendant's daughter, who stated that since they
did not perceive the plaintiff to be a good person, they considered
the plaintiff's shop for starting the parlour and therefore, decided to
evict the plaintiff on the ground of bona fide need of starting the
business. The learned First Appellate Court has accordingly
reversed the findings on bonafide need passed by the learned trial
Court.
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
8. The counter claim for eviction on account of bonafide
need is filed on 09.11.2012. The landlord has pleaded that he was in
need of shop for starting business of beauty parlour for his daughter.
He has pleaded about the need of his daughter and has also
examined her as a witness. The evidence of the daughter will
demonstrate that she has taken training and done some courses for
running of beauty parlour. The daughter has stated that she was a
need of shop for starting a beauty parlour. During the course of her
cross-examination, it is suggested that further construction could be
made in order to satisfy the alleged need. Likewise, the cross-
examination further suggests that the veracity of the certificates
produced on record by the daughter was sought to be questioned.
Perusal of the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate
Court will demonstrate that the learned First Appellate Court has
dealt with the issue of bonafide need properly in the light of legal
position that the bonafide need will not be a hard pressed need but
merely a reasonable need.
9. The defendant/landlord has entered the witness box and
has deposed about the said need. The daughter has also examined
by the landlord in support of her testimony. The documents with
respect to training and qualifications are exhibited during evidence
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
of the daughter. She has also deposed that since she did not have
any place of business, she was required to attend the customers at
their residential houses. The evidence on record would clearly
suggests that a case of bonafide need was made out by the
defendant/landlord.
10. As regards the contention of Mr. Kotwal, learned
Advocate for the petitioner/tenant that counter claim for eviction
was filed only because the respondent/landlord did not consider the
petitioner/tenant to be a person of good character and also on a
ground that he did not agree to execute a fresh agreement in the
year 2011, the said contention can not be accepted in the facts of the
present case. The explanation for choosing the plaintiff' shop, out of
the four tenants, is that the landlord did not consider the petitioner
to be a person of good character. The landlord also had a grievance
against the petitioner of forging rent agreement of the year 2004. It
appears that in the year 2011, the landlord approached all the
tenants for execution of fresh leave and license agreements. The
present petitioner refused to execute fresh agreement. Mr. Kotwal,
contends that only because the petitioner refused to execute fresh
agreement, the landlord initially tried to evict him forcible and
thereafter filed a counter claim seeking eviction on account of
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
alleged bonafide need. He contends that had the petitioner executed
a fresh agreement of license in the year 2011, the landlord would not
have filed proceeding of eviction against him.
11. The learned First Appellate Court has dealt with the
contention and has held that the case of bonafide need was duly
proved. It must also be mentioned that the counter claim for
eviction is filed in the month of November, 2012 there is a time
period around one and half years in between. The findings recorded
by the learned First Appellate Court are based on appreciation of
evidence on record. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
view taken by the learned First Appellate Court is a possible view
which does not warrant any interference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction of this Court and also in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction.
12. As regards the issue of comparative hardship and partial
eviction, question of partial eviction will not arise to the suit
property comprises of a shop block admeasuring 22ft. X 9 ft. As
regards the comparative hardship, the case of the petitioner/tenant
was that the landlord has sufficient property to satisfy the alleged
need and could have made further construction on the plot on
which the suit property was situated. Perusal of the judgment of the
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
learned First Appellate Court will demonstrate that the tenant has
also alternate premises from where he can continue with his
business. This, finding recorded by the learned First Appellate
Court is not assailed before this Court during the course of
arguments.
13. In view of the above, since the alternative
accommodation is available to the tenant, the issue of comparative
hardship will also have to be answered in favour of the landlord.
The tenant cannot compel to make additional construction rather
than seeking decree for eviction against a tenant occupying existing
shop to satisfy the need. In view of the above, the issue of
comparative hardship also deserves to be answered in favour of the
respondent/landlord.
14. In view of the reasons recorded above, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to make out any case
for interference. Writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.
15. At this stage, Mr. Kotwal, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, requests that the execution of the decree for eviction be
deferred for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioner to
approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Mohit Sharma, learned
8.WP.3326.2023 Judgment.odt
Advocate for the respondent, strongly opposes the request, pointing
out that the petitioner is in arrears of rent since April, 2021. In view
of the aforesaid, the request for deferment of execution of the decree
is rejected.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
