Bombay High Court
Suryakumar S/O Harjiwandas Madhwani vs Dattatraya S/O Ramkrushna Dalal on 2 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8722
J-wp8063.19.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.8063 OF 2019
Shri Suryakumar s/o. Harjiwandas Madhwani,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Buldhana, Taluka and District Buldhana
(dead) through legal heirs.
1. Smt. Shobhagauri Suryakumar Madhawani,
Amendment carried
out as per Court's Occupation : Housewife,
Order dated Aged about 70 years.
17.3.2025
2. Rajesh Suryakumar Madhawani,
Occupation : Business,
Aged about 50 years.
3. Lalit Suryakumar Madhawani,
Occupation : Business,
Aged about 48 years.
4. Bhavesh Suryakumar Madhawani,
Occupation : Business,
Aged about 43 years.
All R/o. Jalaram, Buldana, Sarafa Line,
Buldhana, Maharashtra-443 001. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
Shri Dattatraya s/o Ramkrushna Dalal,
Aged about 75 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Dalal layout, Buldhana,
Taluka and District Buldhana. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Yash A. Kullarwar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Tejas S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J-wp8063.19.odt 2/7
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petitioner is defendant No.1 in Regular Civil
Suit No.39 of 2004 which is a suit for eviction and possession filed by
the respondent under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999. The original defendant No.2 was mother of the petitioner
(defendant No.1). The defendant No.2 expired while the civil suit
was pending and the suit proceeded only against defendant No.1 who
is son of defendant No.2.
2. The present respondent landlord had filed the suit for
eviction against the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999. Several grounds were pressed into service for
seeking decree of eviction. However, except the ground of bona fide
need, other grounds did not find favour with the learned trial Court.
The suit came to be decreed on the ground of bona fide need vide
judgment and decree dated 12.08.2013. The petitioner filed appeal
being Regular Civil Appeal No.95/2013 which came to be dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2019. The present petition is
filed against the said concurrent decrees for eviction. After filing of
the petition the petitioner has expired and his legal representatives
are brought on record.
3. The parties would be referred as plaintiff and defendant in
the judgment hereinafter.
4. The plaintiff had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit
No.39/2004 seeking decree of eviction against the defendant on
several grounds including the ground of bona fide need as per Section
16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rent Act'). It is the case of the plaintiff that he is
running a business of sale of fertilizers under the name and style as
'Deepa Fertilizers' in the same building in which the suit shop is
located. The case of the plaintiff is that he was in need of the suit
shop for expansion of his business and for godown purpose. The
defendant opposed the suit contending that the plaintiff had several
other properties and that the need as set up by the plaintiff was not
bona fide. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff had several
other shops and commercial properties which he had not disclosed
and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed on account of
suppression of material facts. The learned trial Court had framed the
issues in the matter at Exh.-203. Amongst other issues, issue
pertaining to bona fide need and comparative hardship were also
framed. The learned trial Court has answered the issue of bona fide
need and comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff and has
accordingly passed decree for eviction against the defendant. The
Appellate Court has also recorded positive finding in favour of plaintiff
with respect to bona fide need and has further held that the defendant
had failed to establish that he would suffer greater hardship if the
decree for eviction is passed. Accordingly the decree for eviction is
upheld by dismissing the appeal.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner (defendant)
strongly contends that in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide
need the landlord is under an obligation to make a complete
disclosure of all properties owned by him and then to come up with
an explanation for choosing a particular property for the alleged bona
fide need in order to make out a case for eviction on the ground of
bona fide need. The learned Advocate draws attention to the
evidence on record and findings recorded by the learned Courts which
record that the landlord did possess other immovable properties. In
the light of above findings, the learned Advocate contends that the
case of bona fide need as set up by the petitioner was liable to be
rejected.
6. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent
(plaintiff) supports the decrees by contending that the bona fide need
is for expansion of existing business. He contends that the suit
property is situated in the same building in which the ongoing
business of fertilizers is being carried by the plaintiff. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff also draws attention to the findings recorded
by both the learned Courts which indicate that even the defendant
owns several immovable properties including shops from where he
can continue with his business.
7. Perusal of the evidence and findings recorded by the
learned Courts would demonstrate that it is not in dispute that the
plaintiff is running business of sale of fertilizers from a shop in the
same building in which the suit property is situated. The case of the
plaintiff is that he needs suit shop for expansion of his business and
for godown purpose. Although the plaintiff has other immovable
properties and shops located elsewhere the same cannot be utilized
for the purpose of expansion of business of fertilizers and for godown
purpose. It is obvious that the suit shop which is located in the same
building will be more suitable and convenient for the said purpose.
Both the learned Courts have considered this aspect of the matter in a
correct perspective. The learned Courts have rightly summarized the
legal position that a tenant or even a Court cannot dictate the
landlord as to manner in which he must use and utilize his properties.
The learned Courts have rightly held that bona fide need does not
mean any pressing need. The findings recorded by both the learned
Courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The legal
principles are also rightly appreciated and correctly applied to the
facts of the case.
8. The findings with respect to bona fide need do not call for
any interference.
9. As regards the issue of comparative hardship the learned
Courts have observed that the defendant was also having several other
commercial properties and in the light of such evidence have
answered the said issue in favour of plaintiff. No fault can be found
with the findings recorded by the learned Courts on the issue of
comparative hardship.
10. As regards the contention of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner (defendant) that the plaintiff did not make a complete
disclosure of all his immovable properties and particularly commercial
properties, the said contention is also correctly dealt with by both the
learned Courts. Both the learned Court have held that since the
bona fide need was for expansion of business being conducted from a
building in which the suit shop is located, existence of properties
elsewhere may not be much relevant. Both the Courts have also held
that the defendant also did not disclose existence of several other
properties.
11. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of
this Court, no fault can be found with the decree for eviction passed
by the learned Courts. The findings recorded are just and proper.
Legal principles are also rightly applied. The suit for eviction is rightly
decreed on the ground of bona fide need. The petition is devoid of
any substance and is liable to be dismissed.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI. J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2025 16:36:08
