The case revolves around an eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs, trustees of Noor Hospital, against the defendant (Shree Durga Trading Co.) for subletting and bona fide requirement. The eviction was sought to expand the hospital's activities. The defendant's claim of comparative hardship and arguments related to the statute of limitations were rejected. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court upheld the eviction on the grounds of unauthorized subletting and bona fide requirement of the premises. The High Court dismissed the revision application, finding no error in the lower courts' concurrent findings.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Revisional jurisdiction.
• Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Relating to the period of limitation for recovering possession by a landlord.
• Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Pertaining to eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting.
• Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Regarding reference back to Trial Court for further findings on issues.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Subletting as a Continuing Breach: The court held that subletting constitutes a continuing breach, thereby making the cause of action for eviction ongoing, dismissing the defendant's argument on the statute of limitations. This interpretation of the Limitation Act highlighted that the subletting of the premises was a continuous wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

2. Unauthorized Subletting: The court concluded that the defendant had sublet the premises to outsiders without authorization, violating tenancy conditions. Despite the tenant’s defense that the other individuals were conducting business on its behalf, the court found that this amounted to subletting.

3. Bona Fide Requirement: The plaintiffs' claim of bona fide requirement to expand hospital activities was supported by consistent evidence. The court reaffirmed that a landlord is the best judge of their requirements and found no error in the trial and appellate courts' findings.

4. Comparative Hardship: The defendant's argument of facing greater hardship if evicted was rejected, particularly because the defendant had already sublet the premises and was not personally using it.

• Para 1-4: Introduction and Background
  The revision application challenges the eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court on grounds of subletting and bona fide requirement. The case had gone through various stages, including an appellate decision and references to the trial court for further findings on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship.

• Para 5-6: Defendant’s Arguments
  The defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, denied subletting, and claimed that the premises were used by the defendant’s partners due to their old age. The defendant also raised the issue of comparative hardship.

• Para 7: Plaintiff’s Claims
  The plaintiffs, trustees of Noor Hospital, sought recovery of the premises to expand hospital activities and alleged subletting of the premises. The plaintiffs also submitted evidence of other individuals conducting business on the premises during the pendency of the suit.

• Para 8-10: Discussion on Limitation
  The court discussed the applicability of Article 67 of the Limitation Act and the concept of continuous wrongs under Section 22, rejecting the defendant’s claim that the suit was time-barred. The act of subletting was considered a continuous breach, making the claim valid.

• Para 11-13: Subletting Established
  The court reviewed evidence showing that the defendant had sublet the premises and no longer had control over it, confirming that the subletting ground was conclusively proven.

• Para 14-19: Subletting by Defendant Nos. 3 & 4
  The court further established that the premises were also sublet to Defendant Nos. 3 & 4 during the pendency of the suit, which reinforced the plaintiffs' claim.

• Para 20-21: Bona Fide Requirement and Comparative Hardship
  The court discussed the bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs for hospital expansion, rejecting the defendant’s argument regarding comparative hardship. The defendant was not using the premises personally, which diminished the validity of the hardship claim.

• Para 22-24: Conclusion and Dismissal of Revision Application
  The court found no error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision application. Additionally, the court allowed the defendant to remain in the premises until November 30, 2024, subject to conditions.

Subjects:

Eviction proceedings, Unauthorized Subletting, Bona Fide Requirement, Comparative Hardship

Limitation Act, Subletting, Tenant Eviction, Civil Procedure, Bombay High Court, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Continuous Wrong