The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction decree passed by the Trial and Appellate Courts, affirming the landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and allowed the eviction to accommodate the expansion of the landlord's jewelry business for himself and his sons. The evidence led by the landlord's daughter-in-law, despite being a practicing advocate, was considered valid and competent in supporting the landlord's case.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
   • Section 115: Revision jurisdiction of the High Court.
   • Order XX Rule 12: Inquiry into mesne profits.
   • Order XLI Rule 22 and Rule 33: Appellate Court’s powers.

1. Background and Procedural History

   • The plaintiff sought eviction under Regular Civil Suit No. 258 of 2002 for bonafide personal need.
   • Trial Court decreed in favor of the landlord, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court. The tenant filed a revision under Section 115 CPC.

2. Suit Premises and Claims (Paras 2-4)

   • Premises: Shop of 600 sq. ft. at Kolhapur.
   • Tenant: Running a garment business since 1969.
   • Landlord's Claim: Expansion of existing jewelry business for himself and his two sons.

3. Defense by Tenant (Paras 5-7)

   • Allegation: Landlord owns multiple properties and seeks possession out of greed.
   • Evidence: Contended the neighboring shop of 150 sq. ft. suffices for expansion.

4. Evidence and Competency of Witness (Paras 8-13)

   • Plaintiff’s Evidence: Presented through Sulabha, daughter-in-law of the landlord, as a constituted attorney.
   • Legal Basis: Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha principles regarding evidence from constituted attorneys.

5. Findings on Bonafide Requirement (Paras 14-21)

   • Evidence established the landlord’s need was genuine and reasonable.
   • Tenant failed to prove comparative hardship.

6. Supervening Events and Their Impact (Paras 22-24)

   • Tenant’s claim of closure of the landlord’s shop in 2017 dismissed for lack of evidence.

7. Conclusion and Dismissal of Revision (Paras 25-26)

   • Revision dismissed. The landlord’s claim upheld, and the tenant directed to vacate by February 28, 2025.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. A landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction must be determined on the basis of reasonableness, not mere whims.
2. A constituted attorney can provide evidence regarding personal knowledge if they are closely associated with the affairs, as affirmed in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010).
3. The Court emphasized that landlords are the best judges of their needs, and tenants cannot dictate terms regarding the premises' usage.

Subjects:

Landlord-Tenant Dispute; Bonafide Requirement; Validity of Evidence by Constituted Attorney; Revision Jurisdiction.

• Landlord-Tenant Relationship
• Bonafide Requirement
• Eviction Law
• Mesne Profits
• Evidence in Civil Suits
• Code of Civil Procedure