Oral Order:
1. The application is filed against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Jalgaon. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant challenging the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 352 of 1998, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The suit filed by the present respondent was for eviction under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?). The said suit was decided in favour of the respondent. Both sides are heard.
2. The suit was filed in respect of one room having size of 6 X 12 feet, which is a part of house property bearing C.T.S. No. 1413 from Maruti Peth, Jalgaon Municipal Council. It is contended that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from previous owner on 20.05.1981 and notice of attornment was given to defendant.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant did not pay the agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month from 01.01.1979 and so notice of termination of tenancy was given. It is contended that the Municipal Council had asked the plaintiff to pull down the structure as it is in dilapidated condition and it is dangerous. It is contended that the plaintiff and his three brothers are living in Hindu joint family and the house property belongs to them. It is contended that there are 22 members in the joint family and they require the suit premises bonafidely for personal use. It is contended that the space available to them in this house, which is of four rooms, is not sufficient. It is contended that the tenant can get similar premises anywhere and no hardship will be caused to him. It is contended that the defendant is a caterer and his entire family takes contract of catering and they make handsome income. Thus, relief of possession was claimed on aforesaid three grounds.
4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied that the previous owner had informed that the property was sold to plaintiff. It is his case that the information supplied by the plaintiff was not sufficient and it was necessary for the previous owner to inform him accordingly. He has denied that the agreed rent was Rs. 5/- per month. He has denied that the rent was payable as per the English Calendar. He has contended that in the past, the previous owner had created dispute about the rent and in a suit standard rent was fixed as Rs. 2/- per month.
5. It is the case of tenant that the rent was tendered by him to the previous owner but the previous owner refused to accept the rent. It is contended that he replied the notice sent by the plaintiff and he had sent the money order of Rs. 468/towards rent for the period 01.01.1979 to 31.12.1998, but this money order was refused by the plaintiff.
6. It is the case of the tenant that there is no premises available in that locality and greater hardship will be caused to him. It is contended that his monthly income is meagre which is upto Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- and he is somehow living on this income. He has contended that in his family, there is wife, two sons and daughter and they all are dependent on him for livelihood.
7. It is the case of the tenant that the landlord has not made necessary repairs and he is responsible for not making the repairs. He however denied the case of landlord that the premises needs to be vacated for making repairs.
8. The trial Court framed the issues on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. Both the sides gave evidence. The landlord examined himself to prove the bonafide requirement and he examined one photographer to show the dilapidated condition of the structure. The defendant examined himself.
9. The record like the notice issued by the landlord, sale deed executed by the previous owner is not disputed. In the evidence, the tenant has not disputed that there are 22 members in the family of the plaintiff. The trial Court has decreed the suit on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use (the ground mentioned in section 13(1)(g) of the Act). The suit is however not decreed on the ground of default in making the payment of rent. It is also held that the premises needs to be repaired and for that the premises needs to be vacated. This decision is confirmed by the appellate Court.
10. It is mainly submitted for the applicant that the first Appellate Court has not considered the material given by the tenant properly. It is submitted that non-consideration of the material by the appellate Court is due to the circumstance that the argument was completed by the parties on 03.07.2012, but the matter was decided on 15.09.2012. It was submitted that due to delay caused in delivering the judgment, the appellate Court could not appreciate the material correctly. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in view of this circumstance, the matter needs to be remanded back. This Court holds that there is no force in the submission that available material is not considered by the appellate Court.
11. It is not disputed that the property was purchased from the previous owner by plaintiff and his three brothers. Thus, it is a joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiff and his three brothers. The name of the plaintiff is mentioned at Sr. No.1 and he is shown as eldest amongst four brothers. The fact that there are at least 22 members in the families of the four brothers is also not disputed and that can be seen in the evidence of defendant. The defendant has given evidence that only two brothers are living in the aforesaid house and there are four rooms in possession of the two brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given evidence that four brothers are using four rooms and as the members in the families are increased, they require the suit premises for personal use, residence purpose. They want to construct four storied building. The size of space of house is given as 40 x 25 ft.
12. The defendant is mainly relying on a circumstance like the admission given by plaintiff in his evidence that one brother is having a flat though in different locality. Some record is produced by the defendant, which is to the effect that the plaintiff and his brother Arun are having flats though in different locality. The area of the constructed portion of the flat of plaintiff is shown as 32.52 Sq. Mtrs. Though the Courts below have held that inference cannot be drawn on the basis of record that this flat belongs to plaintiff, in view of the name given by the plaintiff in his evidence, there is probability that he owns this flat. As per the record, the flat was purchased in the year 2003, after starting of the dispute. It can be said that the two brothers have purchased two flats and that is their additional property. However, this circumstance cannot be used against the plaintiff and the other brothers. When there were 22 members in the family, nobody can expect these brothers to live in the same house. Further portion of 32 Sq. Mtrs of flat purchased shows the financial condition of the plaintiff and it is not good.
13. The sale deed in respect of the suit house shows that four brothers purchased it together. If the brothers want to live together in the same building, nobody can have objection to it. It is upto them to decide as to whether they should live in the same building or they should live in different buildings, in different localities. So, it cannot be said that the plaintiff and his brother have alternate accommodation. In any case, the accommodation, the said two flats, were acquired subsequent to the date of suit and so this change in circumstance cannot come in the way of plaintiff to get the decree.
14. The record and the oral evidence show that the meager amount of Rs. 2/- per month was not paid by the defendant for about 19 years and he tendered the rent only after receipt of notice of termination of tenancy. His evidence shows that he is avoiding to admit the truth. It appears that his son is working as a Tailor. He has not specifically denied that his son has purchased a house property and he has shown ignorance about it. The facts and circumstances of the case are such that it cannot be said that the financial condition of landlord is better than financial condition of the tenant. On the other hand, the evidence given in cross examination of the plaintiff shows that he was required to take on lease the property of other for keeping the goods of the business. This circumstance is sufficient to show that the plaintiff and his three brothers are suffering. They want to construct new house where they can live together.
15. The learned counsel for the tenant placed reliance on the case reported as 2004 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 333 (Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani V/s Durgashankar G. Shroff and others). In this case, this Court observed that it is necessary for the landlord to disclose in pleadings and evidence that he owns other premises capable of being utilised for requirement pressed into service in suit and to explain that inspite of ownership of other premises, requirement pressed into service against tenant would still survive. It is true that it is expected from the landlord to make such disclosure but in the present case the suit was filed in the year 1998 and the some property was purchased subsequent to the date of suit. It is already observed that four brothers could not live in such a small premises and law cannot expect them not to make a new property only for getting the possession of property from tenant. Such development cannot be considered against the landlord and it is duty of the Court to see as to whether the need was genuine on the date of the suit and the need has not eclipsed entirely even after some development. Sufficient discussion is already made in this regard.
16. The learned counsel for the landlord placed reliance on the case reported as AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 536 (Julieta Antonieta Tarcato V/s Suleiman Ismail). In view of the peculiar circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held that the Court cannot compel the landlord to go to other premises and share the premises with co-owner if he is entitled to get the possession of the suit premises. In the case reported as AIR 2003 SC 2024 (Dwarkaprasad V/s Niranjan and another), the Apex Court has laid down that when there is suit filed on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for occupation by himself under the provisions of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, the word œhimself? occurring under clause (g) has to be read as himself and members of his family dependant upon him. It is laid down that if the family of landlord being joint Hindu Family, requirement of landlord and also his brothers etc need to be considered. The landlord in the present case is better placed and it can be said that four brothers had purchased the property together and families of all the four brothers require the suit property. In the case of AIR 1999 SC 2226 (Dattatraya Laxman Kamble V/s Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune), the Apex Court has interpreted the term œReasonably and bonafide required by landlord? as the genuine requirement from any reasonable standard.
17. In the case reported as 2009 B.C.I. 40 (Gurulingappa Sharanappa Birajdar V/s Sidramappa Ganpatrao Mugle), this Court has observed that when there is such suit, it is necessary for the tenant to show that he made any efforts to secure alternative accommodation and he must show that it is impossible to get suitable accommodation in nearby locality. It cannot be disputed that it is necessary for the tenant to prove that the greater hardship will be caused to him if the decree is passed against him. There is no convincing evidence from the tenant on this point.
18. Both the Courts below have considered aforesaid material. The decree is given on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(g) of the Act. Though the other ground like necessity of the premises for repairs is also held to be proved, there is no convincing evidence on that ground. In any case, even after proof of that ground, ultimately it was necessary for the landlord to prove that the premises is required for his personal use, if he wanted to get the relief of eviction and possession. Thus there is no need to discuss the other grounds.
19. The learned counsel for the landlord placed reliance on the judgment reported as AIR 1984 SC 1894 (M/s Bhojraj Kunwarji Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and another V/s Yograjsinha Shankersinha Parihar and ors). In this case, the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is laid down that interference only on the ground that different view on facts elicited is possible, is not permissible in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The facts of the reported case show that in that case also decree was given under the ground mentioned in section 13(1)(g) of the Act. Both the Courts below have considered all the material with regard to this ground and this Court has no reason to interfere the decision given by the Courts below. In the result, the Revision proceedings stand dismissed. Time of four weeks is given to the tenant to challenge the decision of this Court and till then the decree is not to be executed against him.