Bombay High Court
Shr. Pratap Arjundas Valecha vs Shri. Viresh Gangadhar Talajia And Anr on 3 September, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:37019
CRA-553-2019.DOC
Arun Sankpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 553 OF 2019
Pratap Arjundas Valecha,
Age: 63 years, Occupation: Business
R/o. Bharat Hotel, Near Ramkund,
Near Pande Mitthai, Panchvati, Nashik ...Applicant
Versus
1. Viresh Gangadhar Talajia,
Age- 59 years, Occupation-Service
Residing at Old Tambat Lane,
Nashik.
2. Heena Paresh Talajia
Age-47 years, Occupation: Household,
Residing at 1844,
Old Tambat Lane, Nashik
...Respondents
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, with Sandeep D. Shinde and S
Relekar, for the Applicant.
Mr. Vikram A. Sathaye, i/b Yogita Deshmukh, for Respondent.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 3rd JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 3rd SEPTEMBER 2025
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL JUDGMENT:
Date: 2025.09.03
20:57:50 +0530
1. This Revision Application is directed against a judgment and
order dated 27th June 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Nashik
in RCA No. 91 of 2014, whereby the Appeal preferred by the
1/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
Respondents-Plaintiffs, against a judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court in RCS No. 167 of 2008 dated 30 th January 2014 was set
aside and the said Suit came to be decreed thereby directing the
Applicant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises
situated at City Survey No. 5900 (the Suit premises).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this
Revision Application can be stated as under:
2.1 The suit premises is the joint family property of Talajia family-the
members of which perform the rituals as priests. The Applicant-
Defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. The Defendant runs
a hotel under the name and style of Bharat Hotel in the suit premises.
The rent of the suit premises was Rs. 450 per month.
2.2 Viresh(R1) and Ramesh Talajia (P2) and Madhukanta Talajia (P3)
instituted a Suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the
grounds of default in payment of rent, personal bona fide requirement of
the landlord and the nuisance and annoyance to the ad-joining occupiers
on account of the acts and conduct of the Defendant and his servants,
while running the said hotel.
2.3 It was, inter alia, asserted that the members of the Plaintiffs
family were rendering services as priest. The premises in the possession
of the Plaintiffs was extremely inadequate to render the services as priest
as there was a huge rush of the devotees. Vishal, Prashant, Dipak,
2/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
Gitesh, Ramesh and Bipin, the members of the Talajia family, were not
able to render the services of priest on account of paucity of the premises
in their occupation. On account of the acts and omissions on the part of
the employees and customers visiting the hotel, annoyance was caused
to the neighbouring occupiers. The left over food was dumped by the
Defendant and his employees in front of the demised premises. That led
to grave nuisance.
2.4 The Defendant No.1-Applicant resisted the Suit by filing a Written
Statement. It was categorically denied that the Defendant was in arrears
of rent. On the contrary, since January 2008, the landlord had refused to
accept the rent with an oblique motive. An effort made by the Defendant
to pay the rent by Money Order, did not succeed as the landlord refused
to accept the Money Order. The Defendant also controverted the
requirement of the suit premises for the occupation of the landlord. It
was contended that the requirement was neither bona fide nor
reasonable. The Plaintiff had ample space to render the services as
priest. They did not require any additional premises for the said purpose.
The Defendant also refuted the claim of the plaintiffs that the acts and
omissions on the part of the Defendant, his employees and the customers
of the hotel amounted to nuisance and annoyance to the neighbouring
occupiers.
3/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
2.5 The learned Civil Judge, recorded the evidence of the Viresh (PW-
1) and Jitendra Shah (PW-2). The Plaintiffs also tendered documents to
substantiate their claim. The Defendant neither cross-examined the
Plaintiffs witnesses nor adduced any evidence in the rebuttal.
2.6 After appraisal of the evidence and the documents tendered for
her perusal, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to dismiss the Suit
opining, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the
Defendants was in arrears of rent and the suit premises was required by
the Plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide for their occupation. The
evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, according to the learned Civil Judge,
was not sufficient to establish the ground of personal bona fide
requirement.
2.7 Being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs preferred Appeal before the District
Judge, Nashik.
2.8 By the impugned judgment and order the learned District Judge
was persuaded to allow the Appeal. The learned District Judge was of
the view that, since the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs to
substantiate their claim of requirement of the suit premises had gone
unimpeached, there was adequate evidence to sustain a decree for
eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. In the view of
the learned District Judge, the element of greater hardship was also
required to be answered in favour of the landlord. Thus, while affirming
4/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
the finding of the Trial Court that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that
the Defendants committed default in payment of rent, the learned
District Judge held that the ground of personal bona fide requirement of
the landlord was duly proved and, resultantly, passed the decree for
eviction.
2.9 Being aggrieved the Defendant has invoked the revisional
jurisdiction.
3. I have heard Mr. Surel Shah, the learned Senior Advocate, for the
Applicant, and Mr. Vikram Sathaye, the learned Counsel for the
Respondents, at some length. The learned Counsel took the Court
through the pleadings and evidence on record.
4. To begin with, it is necessary to note that the there is not much
controversy over the jural relationship between the Applicant and the
Respondents. Nor is it in contest that the Applicant runs a hotel in the
demised premises. The facts that the demised premises is situated at a
close distance from a temple and the Applicants family renders services
as priests are also not much in dispute.
5. The Courts below have rendered concurrent finding that the
Plaintiffs failed to establish the ground of default in payment of rent by
the Defendant. The controversy thus revolves around the question as to
whether the learned District Judge was justified in recording a finding
that the suit premises was required reasonably and bona fide for the use
5/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
and occupation of the Plaintiff and, in the event of refusal to pass the
decree, the Plaintiffs would suffer greater hardship.
6. As noted above, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 went
unimpeached. Despite ample opportunity, the Defendant did not cross-
examine the Plaintiffs witnesses. Nor the Defendant adduced any
evidence in rebuttal.
7. Faced with the situation which emerged on account of no contest
on behalf of the Defendant-Applicant, Mr. Shah, the learned Senior
Advocate for the Applicant, would urge that, notwithstanding the fact
that the Defendant did not contest the suit, it was incumbent upon the
Courts to evaluate the evidence and material on record before a decree
for eviction could be passed. In the case at hand, the learned Trial Judge
had correctly appraised the material on record and declined to pass the
decree, though the evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs went
unimpeached. The learned District Judge, according to Mr. Shah,
however, erred in passing the decree loosing sight of the judicious
discretion which was required to be exercised.
8. To buttress the aforesaid submission, Mr. Shah placed reliance on
a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja And Anr Vs
Sunil Madan & Anr,1 wherein it was enunciated that the Court is not
expected to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the
Defendant in his Written Statement nor the Court should proceed to pass
1 (1999) 8 SCC 396.
6/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
the judgment blindly merely because a Written Statement has not been
filed by the Defendant traversing the facts set out by the Plaintiff in the
Plaint. In a case, specially where a Written Statement has not been filed
by the Defendant, the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding
under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("the
Code"). Before passing the judgment against the Defendant it must see
to it that even if the facts set out in the Plaint are treated to have been
admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff
without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the Plaint. It is
matter of Court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that
there is no fact which need to be proved on account of deemed
admission, the Court can conveniently pass a judgment against the
Defendant who has not filed the Written Statement.
9. Mr. Shah would further submit that the evidence adduced by the
Plaintiffs, even if taken at par, does not satisfy the test of reasonable and
bona fide requirement. The learned Trial Judge was, therefore, wholly
justified in negativing the claim of the Plaintiffs as the area which was in
the occupation of the Plaintiffs, the persons for whom the additional
premises was required and the extent of the requirement were not at all
spelled out by the Plaintiffs. In the absence of such evidence, the learned
District Judge committed a grave error in allowing the Appeal and
passing the decree of eviction on the ground that the Defendant did not
7/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
cross-examine the Plaintiffs' witness and adduce evidence. To this end,
Mr. Shah placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme court in the case
of Sudha Agrawal Vs Xth Addl District Judge & Ors.2
10. In the said case the Supreme Court postulated that in the context
of the provisions contained in U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, where Application of the landlord
is uncontested, still the landlord has to establish his bona fide need. In
fact the landlord is required to stand on his own legs and he cannot
derive any advantage of absence of defence of the tenant. The
proceedings before the prescribed authority are like an uncontested Suit,
where there is no defence of the Defendant. In such a Suit, the Plaintiff
in order to get a decree must prove his case to the satisfaction of the
Court.
11. Mr. Shah also placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Hanuman Mishrimal Oswal & Anr Vs
Chandrakant Bhagwantrao Chavan & Ors 3 wherein after referring to an
earlier decision in the case of Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani Vs
Durgashankar G. Shroff,4 the learned Single Judge observed as under:
"9. Thus, only when the landlord pleads and proves of the
material facts that the Court would be able to adjudicate
fully and completely as to whether the requirement
2 (1999) 6 SCC 332.
3 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4944.
4 2004 (Supp) Bom C.R. 333.
8/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
pressed into service by the landlord in the suit so filed is
bonafide and reasonable. If the landlord has not
approached the Court with clean hands, it will be the duty
of the Court to non-suit the landlord on this ground.
Khanwilkar, J. thereafter dealt with the argument of the
landlord therein that the case of fraud was neither
pleaded or argued before the Court below. Khanwilkar, J.
held that, assuming the case of fraud is not pleaded but a
specific claim is made by the landlord that the
requirement is bonafide, then, if it is found that the
conduct is of such a nature to gain unfair advantage, then
it would be the duty of the Court to nonsuit such litigant."
12. Per contra, Mr. Sathaye, the learned Counsel for the Respondents,
stoutly submitted that the leaned District Judge was well within his
rights in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as
the latter had completely misdirected herself in appreciating the concept
of, "reasonable and bona fide requirement". Taking the Court through
the Judgment of the Trial court, Mr. Sathaye would urge that the leaned
Civil Judge had taken a completely erroneous view of the matter in non-
suiting the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Plaintiff did not examine the
members of the family for whom the possession of the demised premises
was sought. It is settled law that the term personal requirement is
required to be construed liberally and is not restricted to the landlords
individual requirement. The learned District Judge was, therefore, fully
justified in correcting the error into which the Trial Court had fallen in.
9/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
13. To bolster up the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sathyae placed
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Ramkubai Since Deceased by L.Rs. & Ors Vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand
Chandak & Ors,5 Dwarkaprasad Vs Niranjan & Anr,6 C Karunakaran
(Dead) by LRs Vs T. Meenakshi7 and a judgment of this Court in the case
of Chotumal Bahiramal Sindho (Since Deceased) through his LRs Vs
Baburao Vinayak Mohadkar (Since Deceased) through his LRs.8
14. The aforesaid submissions now fall for consideration:
15. In the backdrop of the uncontroverted facts, noted above, a
perusal of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, indicates that the
Viresh Talajia (PW-1) had given a vivid account of the nature of services
rendered by the Plaintiffs family members as priests, insufficiency of the
premises then in occupation of the family and the necessity of the
additional premises to cater to the requirement of the devotees who
visited the adjoining temple in large numbers. It was in terms deposed
that out of the family members, Vishal, Prashant, Dipak, Gitesh, Ramesh
and Bipin were not in a position to render their services as priest as the
premises in their occupation was insufficient.
16. The aforesaid uncontroverted testimony of the Viresh Talajia
(PW-1) was discarded by the learned Civil Judge primarily on the
5 2000(3) Bom C.R. 628.
6 2003 (4) SCC 549.
7 2005 (13) SCC 99.
8 2009 (5) All M.R. 342.
10/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
ground that the Plaintiff did not furnish the number of devotees who
approached the Plaintiffs for such services; the number of devotees who
could not be provided such services on account of paucity of the space
and the non-examination of the abovenamed members of the Plaintiffs
family as witness to substantiate their claim.
17. Evidently, the learned Civil Judge did not correctly appreciate the
concept of reasonable and bona fide requirement. It is not an immutable
rule of law that the landlord must examine the members of the family
for whom the premises is required. The expression, " for occupation by
himself" is not confined to the landlord individually.
18. In the case of the Dwarkaprasad (Supra) , the Supreme Court
considered the question as to whether the ground of eviction of the
tenant for the personal bona fide requirement of the landlord be
construed strictly so as to confine it to the requirement of the landlord
alone or can it be extended to include the requirement of the members
of the landlord's family. The Supreme Court held that the ground of
eviction contained in Clause (g) of Section 13(1) of the Bombay Rents,
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Bombay Rent
Act 1947"), has to be liberally construed. Confining it to the landlord
alone would defeat the very object of the said provision.
19. In the case of Joginder Pal Vs Naval Kishore Behal, 9 to which a
reference was made in the case of Dwarkaprasad (Supra), it was
9 2002 (5) SCC 397.
11/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
enunciated that the expression, "for his own use" occurring in Section
13(3) (a) (ii) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
has to be liberally construed and should be given a wide and useful
meaning rather than a strict and narrow construction. The requirement
of a member of the family of the landlord who is dependent on the
landlord for the purpose of residence or for economical consideration
can be considered as a requirement of the landlord.
20. In the case at hand, the Plaintiffs have approached the Court
with a specific case that the Plaintiffs family was rendering the services
as priests, the premises in the occupation of the family was insufficient
to render such services by the members of the Plaintiffs family and had,
in fact, named the members of the family who were unable to render
such services on account of the paucity of the premises. The Plaintiffs
thus adduced evidence in support of the said claim. The evidence went
uncontroverted.
21. The learned Civil Judge was not persuaded to place reliance on
such unimpeached evidence for the reason that the persons to satisfy
whose need the suit premises was required, were not examined. Clearly
the learned Civil Judge approached the issue from an erroneous
perspective.
22. In the case of C Karunakaran (Supra), the Supreme Court has
enunciated in clear terms that mere non-examination of the person for
12/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
whose need the building was required by itself was no ground to non-
suit the landlady. In a number of decisions, it has been held that it is not
necessary to examine the person for whose need the premises are
required. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
23. Following the aforesaid pronouncement in the case of Chotumal
Bahiramal Sindho (Supra), the learned Single Judge repelled the
submission canvassed on behalf of the tenant therein that it was
necessary for the landlord to examine his two sons to establish that the
requirement was bona fide and reasonable.
24. In the light of the apparently erroneous view, which vitiated the
findings of the Trial Court, the learned District Judge correctly exercised
the jurisdiction to correct the error committed by the Trial Court. Suffice
to note that the Plaintiffs had adduced adequate evidence to substantiate
the specific pleading as regards the requirement of the suit premises.
The requirement was shown to be both reasonable and bona fide.
Nothing could be brought on record to show to the contrary.
25. On the aspect of the comparative hardship as well, the leaned
District Judge correctly held that the Plaintiffs have brought on record
that the Defendant was running three other firms and the evidence in
regard to the said fact, went unimpeached. The said fact was also sought
to be established by placing on record a copy of the Invitation Card
13/14
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:39:57 :::
CRA-553-2019.DOC
(Exhibit "32") which enumerates the number of firms which the Defendant
was then running.
26. The failure to cross-examine and adduce evidence, can only be said
to be at the own peril of the Defendant. Once it was demonstrated that the
Defendant had three other firms and nothing could be brought on record to
show that, after the institution of the Suit, the Defendant had made efforts
to search for premises to run the hotel business, the element of comparative
hardship was justifiably answered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
27. For the forgoing reasons, this Court does not find such infirmity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order as to warrant
interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
28. Hence the following order:
:ORDER:
The Civil Revision Application stands dismissed.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicant seeks
continuation of the stay to the execution and operation of the impugned
judgment and decree of eviction. As the stay has been in operation since
the year 2019, the same shall continue to operate for the period of four
weeks from today, subject to the Applicant filing an undertaking that he is
in possession of the Suit premises and he will not part with possession of
the suit premises or otherwise create any third party interest therein,
within a period of one week from today.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
