Case Note & Summary
This Civil Revision Application was filed by the original defendants/tenants, Smt. Gumfabai Dattalal Jaiswal and Pramod Dattalal Jaiswal, challenging the judgment and order dated 1st October 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nanded in HRCA No.1/2007. The said appeal arose out of the judgment and order dated 16th May 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kinwat in Regular Civil Suit No.1/2006. The respondents, Suresh Laxminarayan Jaiswal and Dinesh Laxminarayan Jaiswal, were the original plaintiffs/landlords who had filed the suit for eviction of the tenants from the suit premises. The landlords claimed that they required the suit premises bonafide for the business of their son-in-law, who was unemployed and wanted to start a business. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the requirement was not bonafide and that the tenants would suffer hardship. The lower appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, leading to the present revision. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which allows eviction if the landlord requires the premises bonafide for his own use or for the use of any member of his family dependent on him. The court noted that the son-in-law is not a member of the landlord's family under the Act, and the need must be of the landlord himself. The court also considered the fact that the tenants had been in possession for a long time and had no alternative accommodation. The court held that the lower appellate court had erred in decreeing the suit without proper consideration of these factors. The revision application was allowed, the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside, and that of the trial court was restored.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction of tenant for bonafide need of suit premises for business of his son-in-law - The court held that the requirement of premises for son-in-law does not constitute bonafide need of the landlord under the Act, as the need must be of the landlord himself or his family members dependent on him - The son-in-law is not a member of the landlord's family under the Act - The landlord failed to prove that the need was genuine and not a pretext - The tenant's hardship and lack of alternative accommodation were also relevant factors - Held that the lower appellate court erred in decreeing eviction (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the requirement of suit premises by the landlord for the business of his son-in-law constitutes bonafide need under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 1st October 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nanded in HRCA No.1/2007 is set aside. The judgment and order dated 16th May 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kinwat in Regular Civil Suit No.1/2006 is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bonafide need must be genuine and not a pretext
- Landlord must prove requirement for own use and not for others
- Tenant's hardship to be considered
- Reasonable accommodation for tenant required
