Bombay High Court
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Thr Its ... vs Dashrath Dharu Chaudhari Since ... on 3 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23521
1 cra 62.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2023
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd.
Through its Chairman(Manager)
Shri Baburao Kautik Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
Dashrath Dharu Chaudhari
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Uddhav Dashrath Chaudhari
and others .. Respondent
Shri Subodh P. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Anil S. Abhyankar a/w Shri Navin S. Shah h/f S. V. Natu,
Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR ORDER ON : 20.08.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 03.09.2025
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.
2. Petitioner is a tenant, who has suffered decree of eviction
on the ground of bona fide requirement passed by the Trial Court
in R.C.S. No. 42 of 2003, which is confirmed by the lower
Appellate Court in R.C.A. No. 27 of 2014. It is invoking
jurisdiction U/Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for the
sake of convenience and brevity hereinafter referred as to the
'C.P.C.').
2 cra 62.23
3. The controversy pertains to northern side five rooms
comprising of 60 x 40 feet of C.T.S. No. 797/2 situated at
Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar owned by the respondent.
Petitioner was a tenant, who was allotted the premises
somewhere in 1962 for non residential purposes. Both the
parties are at variance on the monthly rent payable to the
respondent - landlord. As default is not the ground pressed into
service by the respondent - landlord, the dispute about rent is
not relevant. Petitioner is a cooperative society and it runs a
business of selling seeds, pesticides, medicines and all
agriculture related equipments in the demised premises.
4. Respondent filed suit for eviction U/Sec. 16(1)(g) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for the sake of convenience
and brevity hereinafter referred as to the 'Act'). It is claimed
that premises is needed for grandson Chandrakant, nephew
Sanjay and Jagdish for business and commercial activity. It is
contended that southern five rooms in occupation of the
respondent are inadequate and there is no suitable and
convenient premises available. It is further contended that the
petitioner owns number of properties, many of which are already
let out. The petitioner can accommodate it's activities in the
premises available with it and there would be no hardship.
5. Petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement
denying that there was no joint family and nephew or the
grandson are not members of the same. It is contended that need
3 cra 62.23
is false and already adequate premises is available with the
respondent. Additionally, it is stated that the demised premises
is convenient not only for the petitioner, but for the beneficiaries
and the agriculturists. It is further contended that the tenants of
the petitioner have not vacated the premises and suits are
pending for eviction.
6. Respondent examined two witnesses one is himself and
another is Chandrakant, his grandson. Petitioner examined
manager Mr. Anandrao Patil.
7. Both the Courts below held that the respondent is entitled
to receive the possession on the ground of bona fide requirement.
The issue of hardship is also answered in favour of the
respondent - landlord. It is concurrently held that petitioner is
having a multi storied building and it has twelve to thirteen
tenants. One of the tenants i. e. State Bank was evicted part of
the premises. Both the Courts below took cognizance of the
admissions given by the petitioner's witness in the cross
examination.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Subodh P. Wani appearing for the
petitioner canvassed following submissions :
I The requirement of the respondent is neither bona fide, nor
reasonable. The persons for whom the requirement is tried to be
shown are not dependent on the respondent.
4 cra 62.23
II No joint family of the respondent exists. There is already
partition and members are separate, which is clearly admitted by
the witnesses of the respondent.
III Undue reliance is placed on the evidence of the petitioner's
witness.
IV There is no adequate material on record to corroborate
bona fide requirement and hardship.
V Courts below committed perversity in holding that
respondent's family is joint and findings of bona fide requirement
are based on conjuncture and surmises.
VI No specific findings are recorded on the issue of hardship.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Anil Abhyankar appearing
for the respondent would support impugned judgments and
decrees. He would submit that there are concurrent findings of
facts, which are based on material on record and which are
reasonable and plausible. It is submitted that respondent is
entitled to claim the premises not only for his need, but for the
requirement of his grandson and nephews or members of the
family. It is submitted that demised premises is at the front side
and most convenient for business. It is further submitted that
witness of the petitioner has given vital admissions, which are
rightly appreciated by the Courts below. It is further submitted
that the petitioner is owner of huge building at prime location
and has adequate premises to shift its business. Couple of
5 cra 62.23
tenants vacated the premises and against few of the tenants
suits are pending. It is also submitted that present revision
application is not tenable.
10. Mr. Anil Abhyankar, learned counsel for the respondent
raised a plea that present revision application is not tenable. For
that purpose reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and
another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi deceased through his heirs and
L.Rs. reported in 1997(3) Bom.C.R. 01. I am not inclined to accept
the plea. It is settled legal position that civil revision application
U/Sec. 115 of the C. P. C. is tenable. In the present case, writ
petition was filed, which is converted into revision. It is true
that all species of hardship or wrong decision cannot be corrected
by the High Court, but jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be
excluded altogether. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain
revision as it is laid down in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78.
11. Admittedly, southern side portion is in possession of the
respondent - landlord and five rooms on the northern side
situated within 60 x 40 feet is the demised premises. It needs to
be clarified that the petitioner had let out the premises for non
residential purpose. The requirement pleaded in para Nos. 3 and
4 of the plaint and the evidence pertain to non residential
purposes i. e. for starting computer classes, medical shop or the
business. Therefore a stray reference in the deposition of P.W.
No. 2 that suit premises is required for demolition of old
6 cra 62.23
structure and constructing new building cannot be entertained.
The decree has not been passed on that ground.
12. I have gone through the deposition of the P.W. No. 1. My
attention is adverted by the learned counsel Mr. Wani to his
cross examination. Respondent is the owner of the property and
he wants the premises for business of or settling down his
grandson and nephews. He has admitted that in the year 1958
partition took place, but further clarified that it was nominal and
members are still residing together. The houses and the
agricultural lands allotted to them are stated to be separate. This
Court need not go into the niceties of partition by metes and
bounds or joint family status of the respondent and his family
members. It is immaterial as to whether their residence or
agricultural occupation is separate or not. The requirement
pressed into service by the respondent is for starting business for
few of the family members.
13. It has not come on record that grandson Chandrakant or
nephews Sanjay and Jagdish were having independent and
adequate business ventures at suitable places, when suit was
filed. It is not requirement of law that the persons for whom the
premises is required have to be dependent on the landlord. In
present case they are close relatives of the respondent and if
premises is required for their settlement, then there is nothing
unreasonable. Notwithstanding the partition, the relationship
subsists. Considering frontage and location of the demised
premises, if respondent wants the premises for starting business
7 cra 62.23
for his family members, bona fides cannot be doubted.
14. It has come on record that grandson Chandrakant is a
diploma holder in pharmacy and has experience and is in need of
premises to start a shop. Sanjay a nephew is having required
qualification to start the computer classes. Jagdish another
nephew of the respondent is an engineer and he needed premises
to start business. The requirement pressed into service by the
respondent - landlord is genuine and reasonable. It cannot be
said to be mere desire or imaginary.
15. I find no merit in the submissions of the learned advocate
Mr. Wani for the petitioner that respondent owed no duty to
settle members of the family due to partition. The cross
examination of the respondent and Chandrakant does not
elucidate anything useful to the petitioner. Both the witnesses
corroborated plea of bona fide requirement. This Court cannot be
oblivious of the fact that the premises in question is at the prime
location surrounded by commercial activities where any person
would like to start the business. Simultaneously, there is
material on record to indicate that southern side premises
available with the respondent - landlord is inadequate.
16. Mr. Anil Abhyankar, learned advocate is right in
contending that Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act contemplates need of the
landlord himself or any person for whose benefit the premises
are held. The requirement pressed into service is clearly covered
8 cra 62.23
by Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act. The concurrent findings of facts
recorded by both the Courts below cannot be faulted. Those are
reasonable findings supported by evidence on record. It is trite
law that neither tenant, nor this Court can determine or regulate
need of the landlord. Landlord is best judge of his need and
suitability of the premises.
17. Both the parties pleaded and led evidence on comparative
hardship. An issue to that effect was also cast in the Trial Court
as well as lower Appellate Court. Trial Court dealt with that
issue in para No. 16 and Appellate Court in para No. 50. The
submission of the petitioner that issue of hardship has not been
precisely dealt with cannot be accepted. I find that both the
Courts below considered material on record and the case laws
also in answering issue in favour of the respondent - landlord.
18. In written statement petitioner did not dispute that it is
owner of a building and there are tenants in it. It transpires that
proceedings for eviction against them are pending. One of the
tenants is the State Bank. Oral evidence of the witnesses of the
respondent indicate that there are number of premises owned by
the petitioner and one such premises is a building near Nehru
statue of Nandurbar city. It comprises of four godowuns. There
are twelve to thirteen tenants in the said building. The
pleadings and the cross examination of the petitioner's witness
unequivocally disclose availability of the premises with the
petitioner.
9 cra 62.23
19. I have gone through the deposition of the petitioner's
witness, who is the manager. There are number of candid
admissions. It is not disputed that he is in know how of
administration and assets of the petitioner society. Following
admissions are very crucial :
(i) The premises of building owned by the petitioner is 7000 to
8000 square feet, in which twelve to thirteen tenants are
housing.
(ii) Four godowuns are in the building.
(iii) Previously State Bank was the tenant, which vacated the
premises and the same has been let out to other tenants on
higher rent.
(iv) Petitioner filed suits for eviction against eight to ten
tenants, out of that in two cases decree for eviction was passed by
compromise.
(v) Possession was given by one of the tenants namely
Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, which is comprising
of 1800 square feet.
(vi) Tenant Prabhakar Jondhale handed over possession of five
rooms in compromise and some rooms were further let out to
other tenants.
(vii) Petitioner secured possession of it's tenanted premises
citing present suit for eviction filed by the respondent.
(viii) Respondent is having a big family and agricultural lands
are not sufficient to satisfy their needs.
(ix) The premises is required for medical shop or computer
10 cra 62.23
business.
20. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated admissions
referred above in deciding issue of bona fide requirement and
hardship in favour of the respondent. I do not find any
perversity or patent illegality in those findings. The witness
cannot be discarded just because he is admitting the requirement
of the members of respondent's family. The respondent has
independently led evidence. The admissions given by the
petitioner's witness corroborated case of the respondent. The
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that undue
reliance is placed on his evidence is also liable to be rejected.
21. Petitioner placed reliance on following judgments of
Supreme Court and this High Court :
A. Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal reported in AIR 1974 SC 1596. I have
considered paragraph No. 12. It is laid down that the test to be
applied by the Court is an objective test and not subjective one
while examining bona fide requirement. Mere assertion would
not be sufficient to prove that requirement is bona fide. Mere
desire is not sufficient. I have followed the same principles and
recorded in the present matter that it is not a mere desire of the
respondent. The evidence on record shows element of need and
genuineness in starting new business. Respondent has
discharged the burden in that regard. This judgment will not
help the petitioner.
11 cra 62.23
B. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and another Vs. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar and
others reported in 2024 SAR (Civ) 275. I have gone through para No.
11. Bona fide requirement as contemplated by Sec. 16(1)(g) of the
Act is separate from requirement U/Sec. 16(1)(h) of the Act. I
have already clarified that though it is tried to be contended by
one of the witnesses of the respondent that premises is required
for demolishing old structure and erecting new building, the said
plea is liable to be rejected because the ground for eviction, which
is pressed into service is U/Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act. This
judgment will not help the petitioner.
C. Vasant Mahadeo Gujar Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and another reported
in (2015) 5 Bom CR 243. I have considered para Nos. 54, 57, 58, 60,
63 and 64 of the judgment. It is distinguishable on facts. I have
already recorded that in the case at hand not only respondent -
landlord has led adequate evidence to make out a case U/Sec.
16(1)(g) of the Act, but the witness of the petitioner has given
material admissions to corroborate respondent's case. This
judgment is of no avail to the petitioner.
D. Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar (M/s) Parbhani Vs. Sulochanabai W/o
Gangadharrao Wattamwar reported in 2022(4) Mh.L.J. 41. I have
considered para Nos. 17, 20 to 26 of the judgment. The facts are
distinguishable. In the present case adequate evidence is led to
make out a case of bona fide requirement which is not mere
fanciful wish or dishonest desire. This judgment is not useful to
the petitioner.
12 cra 62.23
E. Sushiladevi and others Vs. Avinash Chandra Jain and others reported in
(1987) 2 SCC 219. I have gone through para No. 3 of the judgment.
After examining record and the impugned judgments, I have
come to the conclusion that the impugned decisions are in
accordance with settled principles of law. There is no perversity
or error of jurisdiction.
22. Respondent relied on following judgments of the Supreme
Court and this High Court :
a. Kanahaiya Lal Arya Vs. Md. Ehshan and others reported in 2025 SAR
(Civ) 418. I have gone through the judgment. Propositions laid
down in para Nos. 10 to 12 are not disputed. It is reiterated that
landlord is best judge to decide and select the property required
to satisfy his need. I have concurred with the findings recorded
by the Courts below by following the judgment.
b. Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and another reported in 2003(2) All MR
1140 (S.C.). I have gone through para Nos. 8, 9 and 11 of the
judgment, which explains the purport of word 'himself' occurring
in Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act. Following the same principle, I have
recorded that requirement of grandson and nephews is squarely
covered by Sec. 16(1)(g) of the Act.
c. Maganlal Kishanlal Godha Vs. Nanasaheb Udhaorao Gadewar reported
in 2008 (3) B C J 554 (SC). I have considered para Nos. 15 to 18 of
the judgment. It is rightly contended by the respondent that the
tenant cannot dictate that already southern side portion is
13 cra 62.23
available for the respondent to accommodate business activities
of the family members. It is the privilege of the respondent -
landlord. The ratio is applicable to the present case.
23. I am of the considered view that the respondent is entitled
to receive possession. Decrees passed by both the Courts below
are sustainable. For the foregoing reasons, I find no substance in
the revision. The civil revision application is dismissed with cost.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Sept. 25
