Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a residential tenancy in Shaniwar Peth, Pune, where the tenant occupied five rooms admeasuring about 16 Khans and a bathroom on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs.8, exclusive of education cess. The landlord resided on the first floor and attic of the same building. Following the Panshet floods in 1961, a part of the suit premises collapsed, the Pune Municipal Corporation demolished dangerous structures from time to time, and the tenant was eventually left residing and using 7 Khans. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated 3rd October 1977 directing the landlord to demolish the dilapidated portion occupied by him. After serving a demand notice, the landlord filed Suit No.2285 of 1983 in the Small Causes Court, Pune seeking eviction on the grounds of default, change of user, nuisance, and bonafide requirement. The trial court decreed possession of the collapsed portion (9 Khans) but rejected all other grounds. Both parties appealed to the District Judge, Pune. The appellate court allowed the tenant's appeal and dismissed the landlord's cross appeal, resulting in the total dismissal of the eviction suit. This led the landlord to file the present writ petition under Article 227. The High Court re-examined the bonafide requirement issue. The court observed that the landlord's portion was in a dilapidated condition and that the Municipal Corporation had already issued a demolition notice. Given the landlord's large family, comprising himself, his wife, his mother, four sons, three daughters-in-law, two grandsons, and one unmarried son, residing in four rooms, one hall, and attic, the court found that the landlord had successfully made out a case of bonafide need. The lower courts' reasoning was held to be unreasonable and contrary to settled principles. The court also held that the issue of greater hardship tilted in favour of the landlord as he could not be expected to live in a dilapidated building when his own building was in the tenant's possession. Regarding change of user, the court found no material to interfere with the concurrent findings that using a portion for gardening did not constitute change of user. Similarly, the court did not disturb the findings on default. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment dated 20th February 1992, decreed the landlord's suit for possession of the property as described in the plaint, and directed that the landlord was entitled to future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of possession under Order XX, Rule 12(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Landlord-Tenant Law - Bonafide Requirement - Establishment of Genuine Need under the Relevant Rent Control Legislation - Landlord's Claim for Eviction on Ground of Bonafide Requirement Was Erroneously Rejected by the Lower Courts Despite Evidence that the Landlord's Portion Was Dilapidated and the Municipal Corporation Had Issued a Notice for Demolition; The High Court Held that Such Condition, Coupled with the Landlord's Large Family and Limited Accommodation, Established Genuine Need, and the Courts Below Failed to Apply Settled Principles Governing Landlord-Tenant Relationships - Held that the Landlord Made Out a Sufficient Ground for His Own Bonafide Use and Occupation (Paras 3-6). B) Landlord-Tenant Law - Comparative Hardship - Consideration of Relative Hardship Under the Relevant Rent Control Legislation - The Court Analyzed the Circumstances That the Landlord's Family Consisted of Himself, His Wife, His Mother, Four Sons, Three Daughters-in-Law, Two Grandsons, and One Unmarried Son, and He Was in Possession of a Dilapidated Portion; The Tenant's Accommodation Would Be Lost, but the Landlord's Need to Avoid Dangerous Living Conditions Tipped the Balance in His Favour - Held that It Was Difficult to Insist the Landlord Live in Such a Dilapidated Building When His Own Building Was in the Possession of the Tenant (Para 5). C) Landlord-Tenant Law - Change of User - What Constitutes Change of User Under the Relevant Rent Control Legislation - The Tenant's Use of a Small Portion of the Rented Premises for Gardening Was Contended to Be a Change of User; The High Court Upheld the Lower Courts' Finding that Gardening on the Premises Did Not Amount to Change of User, Without Further Elaboration on That Controversy - Held that Mere Gardening Use Does Not Constitute Change of User (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord had established bonafide requirement and comparative hardship so as to be entitled to eviction of the tenant, and whether the findings of the lower courts rejecting the claim were perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate judgment dated 20th February 1992, decreed the suit for possession in favour of the landlord, and directed future mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the landlord had made out a case of bonafide requirement and greater hardship, but upheld the concurrent findings rejecting the grounds of default and change of user.
Law Points
- bonafide requirement of landlord
- comparative hardship
- change of user
- municipal notice
- dilapidated building
- mesne profits
- eviction on ground of bonafide need
