[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Parvatibai Lingu Gorel vs Shri. Vijay Bhaganna Anklellu (Since ... on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:2763
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NADAF Date:
2026.01.21
10:32:23 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2013
+0530
Parvatibai Lingu Gorel
(since deceased through legal heirs)
1A) Ashok Lingu Gorel
1B) Koshir Lingu Gorel
1C) Sharda Dayanand Pinjarelu
1D) Savita Surendra Pinjarelu
1E) Pushpa Satish Igole ...Applicants
Versus
Vijay Bhaganna Anklellu
(since deceased through legal heirs)
1. Pushpa Vijay Anklellu (deleted)
2. Vipul Vijay Anklellu
3. Vaibhav Vijay Anklellu
4. Vinal Vijay Anklellu
5. Vivek Vijay Anklellu ... Respondents
****
Mr. Ramesh D. Soni a/w. Mr. Vipin Kasle a/w. Mr. Tushar R.
Momaiyah for the Applicants.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel
for the parties finally by consent.
2. This revision application under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC' for short), takes exception to the
impugned Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2012 passed by District
Judge-5, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 779 of 2007. By the impugned
Judgment and Decree, the Appeal Court has allowed the said appeal
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
filed by the Respondent-landlord thereby decreeing the suit, ordering
eviction of the revision applicant/tenants.
3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this civil revision
application, are as under.
3.1. The Respondent - original plaintiff (Mr. Vijay) filed Suit No.
545 of 2005 in the Small Causes Court at Pune against Revision-
Applicant-Defendant (Parvatibai), under provisions of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ('MRC Act', for short) on the
grounds of default and bonafide requirements. Parties led evidence
and the Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the suit
by Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2007, holding that neither
ground of default nor ground of bonafide requirement could be
proved by the Respondent-landlord.
3.2. The landlord filed the aforesaid appeal challenging the decree
of dismissal. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and
decree, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. It is a matter of
record that the Respondent landlord pressed the appeal only on the
ground of bonafide requirement and not on the ground of default,
which is recorded in paragraph No.9 of the impugned judgment.
3.3. The Appellate Court held that the ground of bonafide
requirement is proved and went on to consider the aspect of
comparative hardship as mandated under law. It held that the point
of hardship tilts in the favour of the landlord and therefore the suit
came to be decreed.
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
3.4. It is in these circumstances that original Defendant filed
present revision application.
4. This Court by order dated 17.02.2014, after hearing both sides,
passed an order of remand under Order XLI Rules 25 & 26 of CPC
directing the Appeal Court to frame additional issues on the basis of
amended plaint and additional evidence and to record evidence. The
Appeal Court was directed to record finding and transmit the record
back to this Court. The present revision application was kept pending.
5. Learned counsel for the parties has placed on record the issue
that was framed by the Appellate Court and the findings of the Trial
Court and Appellate Court recorded thereon. The same are taken on
record and marked 'X' for identification.
6. The Appellate Court framed following issue, after remand :
"Whether the defendant prove that the area of property No. 2974 to
2676 is separate and different?"
7. Evidence was recorded and the Trial Court and Appellate Court
by its orders dated 05.11.2014 and 23.09.2015 rendered a finding
that the defendant has proved that area of property Nos. 2974 to
2976 is separate and different. Appellate Court held that the finding
recorded by the Trial Court does not require interference.
8. The Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence held that the
evidence in the form of property card extract Exh.49, 54 and 55 for
sheet Nos. 2974, 2975 and 2976 are separate, different and having
separate area and all the three sheets numbers are collectively more
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
than 115 sq. mtrs.
9. Thus, this Court is now required to consider the effect of this
finding recorded after remand. During pendency of the revision
application, both the Plaintiff and Defendant have expired and their
legal heirs are brought on record.
10. Learned counsel Mr. Soni appearing for the Applicants/tenants
submitted that this is a case where landlord had not disclosed the
premises available with them and therefore it has direct bearing on
the issue of requirement. He further submitted that the aspect of
hardship has been considered practically without any basis in the
evidence, as the financial capacity cannot be borne out from the
evidence on record. He submitted that the finding of the Appellate
Court on the requirement as well as comparative hardship needs
interference. He has relied upon the finding of the Appellate Court
(post remand) that the finding given by the Trial Court should not be
interfered.
11. Per contra, Mr. Walimbe learned counsel for the
Respondents/landlords submitted that it has been clarified after
remand that all three CTS/sheets numbers are part of same one S.
No. 87B/1 and there was no suppression of available premises. He
submitted that the fact of the landlord having only one room his
possession and tenant also having one room in possession has not
changed. He also submitted that landlords having a growing family,
the requirement is genuine and they are the best judge of their own
requirement. He urged that no interference is required.
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
13. Perusal of original plaint indicates that the Respondent
landlord had described the suit premises as one room on eastern side
admeasuring 120 sq. ft. in Survey No. 87B/1, Khadki Cantonment
House No. 42, Vidyanagar (East) Khadki, Pune-3. The plaint did not
disclose that the property has three different CTS/sheet numbers.
14. The plaint was amended at Appellate Stage. The Appellate
Court in the impugned judgment has considered the amended plaint
in which a case was made out by the Respondent- landlord that the
said three CTS/sheet numbers are part of only one Survey No.
87B/1, which is disclosed in plaint. The Appellate Court has
considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the Respondent
landlord about the requirement and size of the family, which is stated
to be 9 persons at the relevant time. Mr. Walimbe, learned counsel for
the Respondents, has fairly submitted that during the course of the
time the original landlord Mr. Vijay and his wife Pushpa have expired.
However, their 4 sons and their growing families still require the suit
premises for their bona-fide need.
15. So far as the argument of non-disclosure of the available
premises is concerned, it appears from the record, especially the
order of the Appellate Court (post remand) that the three separate
sheet Nos. 2974, 2975 & 2976 are part of same Survey No.87B/1.
The Appeal Court had already considered the amendment carried out
by the landlord at appellate stage in which same case was pleaded
that CTS numbers are only part of one survey number. In that view of
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
the matter, I do not find any merit in the submission that the landlord
had not disclosed premises available with them. The landlord has
stepped into witness box and stated that he has only one room in his
possession he has 9 family members. From the evidence recorded
after remand, it appears that there is some dispute about how many
rooms are in possession of Landlord. According to tenants, there are
2 rooms and according to landlord, it is only one room in their
possession. In any case, considering the family size, presently 4 sons
of landlord with their growing families, the requirement as pleaded
appears to be bonafide. Also, even if some open space is available
with the landlord, from the said survey number, it can not be
considered for requirement of constructed room for residence of a
family.
16. In the light of above overall discussion, I am not inclined to
interfere in the finding about bona fide requirement being proved.
17. However, since the ground of bonafide requirement is involved,
it is imperative for the Courts to consider the aspect of comparative
hardship before a decree of eviction is passed. Perusal of paragraph
No. 20 of the impugned judgment indicates that the Appeal Court has
considered that Defendant is a widow maintaining herself on
pension. The Appellate Court has recorded that her son Ashok is not
doing work. However in the same paragraph Appeal Court has
considered that her son Ashok and his wife are working and earning
money. The Appellate Court apparently has not considered the
evidence in proper perspective and there is no clear evidence about
the aspect of comparative hardship in the form of earning capacity of
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
the parties involved. The Appeal Court has proceeded on the footing
that since there is nothing to suggest that the defendant searched for
alternative premises, the aspect of hardship tilts in the favour of
landlord.
18. Therefore, in my view, the matter requires remand only on the
ground of competitive hardship. Considering that the suit is filed in
2005, I do not find this to be a fit case to remand the matter to the
Trial Court and adding one more round of litigation between the
parties. Both sides can be set at liberty to lead additional evidence,
especially about financial capacity of parties and other premises that
may be available with tenants, which the Appeal Court can consider
under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
19. Hence, Civil Revision Application is disposed of by passing
following order :
(a) The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.11.2012 is set
aside only on the ground of comparative hardship.
(b) It is clarified that the finding of the Appellate Court on the
ground of bona-fide requirement is confirmed in favour of the
Respondents/landlords.
(c) The Appellate Court is directed to consider the issue of
comparative hardship on the basis of available evidence as well as the
additional evidence that may be led by the parties under Order XLI
Rule 27 of CPC and pass consequent order.
6-CRA-146-2013 C.doc
(d) The hearing of the appeal is expedited and the Appellate Court
is directed to decide the same within a period of one year from date
of presentation of this order.
(e) Parties are directed to appear before Appellate Court on
02.02.2026. Parties are also directed not to take unnecessary
adjournments and co-operate in disposal of the appeal within the
time.
(f) The Revision-Applicants/tenants are directed to pay the arrears
of the contractual rent upto date, directly to Respondent No. 2 Mr.
Vipul Vijay Anklellu, within a period of 4 weeks from today.
(g) Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
20. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
