Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree for Bonafide Requirement in Rent Control Case. Landlords' need for suit premises held genuine despite acquisition of additional rooms under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Civil writ petition challenging concurrent decrees for possession in a suit for eviction under rent control laws.

The petitioner (original defendant) sought to set aside the decree for possession passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

The petitioner challenged the eviction decree on the ground that subsequent events (acquisition of additional blocks by the landlords) had satisfied the landlords' bonafide requirement.

The trial court passed a decree for possession; the District Court dismissed the appeal; the High Court remanded the matter to the District Court to decide the issue of subsequent events; the District Court found that the bonafide requirement still subsisted.

Whether the bonafide requirement of the landlords under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, stood satisfied or ceased to exist due to the subsequent acquisition of four additional blocks of rooms by the landlords.

The petitioner (tenant) argued that the landlords had acquired four additional blocks of two rooms each, two already in possession and two likely to be acquired, which fully satisfied their requirement for accommodation. The respondents (landlords) contended that their bonafide requirement for the suit premises still subsisted despite the acquisition of other blocks, as the need was for the joint family and the acquired premises were not sufficient or suitable.

In a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the burden lies on the tenant to prove that subsequent events have rendered the landlord's requirement non-existent. Mere acquisition of additional premises by the landlord does not automatically extinguish the bonafide requirement; the tenant must show that the acquired premises fully satisfy the landlord's need.

The trial Court passed a decree for possession which was challenged by the defendant. The appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the District Court. Taking overall view of the matter, I am inclined to keep the present writ petition pending and instead, invite finding of the District Court, Solapur on the issue as to whether on account of acquisition of four additional blocks consisting of two rooms each (two blocks already acquired and the two other blocks are likely to be acquired on execution of decree of eviction against the respective tenants), the requirement of the landlords still subsists or stands fully satisfied. The District Court, Solapur shall permit both the parties to file their respective affidavits articulating their claim that the ground of bonafide requirement no more subsists or otherwise.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court decreed possession. The defendant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. The defendant then filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court, by order dated 17th July 2009, remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the bonafide requirement still subsisted in light of subsequent events. The District Court, after taking evidence, submitted a finding that the requirement still subsisted. The High Court then heard the writ petition and dismissed it, upholding the eviction decree.

• Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(g)