Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Shakuntalabai Deoram Thange, was a tenant in one room on the ground floor of House No. 155, Ward No. 4, Daund, District Pune. The respondent, Shaikh Mukhatyar Istaq, purchased the property on 3 December 1984 and filed a suit for eviction in 1986 before the Civil Judge, J.D., Daund, on grounds of default and bonafide need. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Baramati, by judgment dated 23 June 1993, reversed the trial court's decision and decreed eviction. The tenant challenged this in the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2745 of 1994. The High Court heard both sides. The tenant's counsel argued that the tenant was aged and would suffer greater hardship if evicted. The landlord's counsel pointed to the appellate court's reasoning in paragraph 12, where it held that the tenant would not be left on the street as she had other options. The High Court found that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the landlord's bonafide need was genuine. The court noted that the appellate court had considered the comparative hardship and concluded that the landlord's need outweighed the tenant's hardship. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Need - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(g) - Landlord purchased property in 1984 and filed suit in 1986 for eviction on ground of bonafide need for business - Trial court dismissed suit, appellate court decreed eviction - High Court upheld appellate court's decision, holding that the appellate court had correctly appreciated evidence and that the landlord's need was genuine and reasonable (Paras 1-3). B) Rent Control - Comparative Hardship - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(2) - Tenant argued that being aged, eviction would cause greater hardship - Appellate court considered that tenant had other accommodation options and that landlord's need was more pressing - High Court affirmed that the appellate court's finding on hardship was based on evidence and not perverse (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal and decreeing eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide need of the landlord, and whether the tenant's age and hardship should have prevailed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's decree of eviction.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- comparative hardship
- tenant's age as hardship factor
- appreciation of evidence by appellate court
