The Bombay High Court has affirmed the principle that the landlord is the ultimate authority in determining their residential needs, emphasising that tenants cannot dictate terms on how landlords should adjust in their own premises.
The decision came in a revision application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), challenging the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, which confirmed an eviction decree.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, presiding over a Single Bench, stressed the genuine and honest need of the plaintiffs (landlords) for additional accommodation, deeming it reasonable and bonafide. The court rejected challenges to the findings on the issue of the premises' bonafide and reasonable requirement, asserting that the landlord's judgment in this matter prevails.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The dispute in question centres around a 319 sq ft premises situated in Gulalwadi, South Mumbai. The plaintiffs, a joint family comprising 11 members – Chandrakant, Ketan, and Sanjiv Shah – issued a notice to the tenant, Hasmukh Shah, on May 17, 2004, terminating the tenancy and demanding possession of the premises. In response, Ajay Shah, the tenant's representative, claimed possession, asserting that the premises served both residential and commercial purposes.
Contentions of the Parties:
The landlords, dissatisfied with the tenant's occupation, filed an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court. Their primary contentions were twofold: firstly, they contended that the premises had been sublet without their written consent, and secondly, they argued that the existing living conditions were untenable for the family. Specifically, the plaintiffs stated that 11 family members were residing in a cramped 400 sq ft area, leading to space constraints. This, they argued, necessitated the bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises.
In response, Ajay Shah countered the claim of subletting, asserting that the premises had been in continuous occupation by his father and uncle since 1954 for combined residence and office use. He, being an Income-tax practitioner, utilised the space for both residential and office purposes. Additionally, he contended that the landlords had ample space at their disposal.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court, in its observation, highlighted the family's cramped living conditions in the existing 400 sq ft area and the grown-up children's need for space and privacy for studies.
Justice Prabhudessai underlined the limited scope of Section 115 of the CPC in revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that interference can only occur if the lower courts' findings are unreasonable. The court dismissed the application, affirming that neither the Trial court nor the Appellate court committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in ordering eviction.
The Decision of the Court:
The landlords were granted three months to vacate the premises, and the court invoked Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, allowing eviction based on the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Case Name: Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah vs. Chandrakant Babulal Shah
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Anuja Prabhudessai
Case No.: Civil Revision Application No. 119 of 2021
Advocate of the Appicant: Mr. Rajendra M. Haridas
Advocate of the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra M. Chheda
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
