The Bombay High Court set aside an eviction decree based on the landlord's bona fide requirement claim. The applicant (tenant) challenged both the Trial Court and Appellate Bench’s decisions, asserting that the landlord's need was neither genuine nor proven. The Court ruled that the landlord's alternative premises were sufficient for their stated needs, negating the necessity for eviction. The Court also noted the tenant’s ongoing use of the premises and the comparative hardship in favor of the tenant.

• Eviction Decree Challenged:
  The applicant filed a Civil Revision Application against the eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court, which was based on the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement for the premises.

• Landlord's Bona Fide Requirement:
  The plaintiff (landlord) sought eviction, citing the need for the premises for his daughter-in-law’s business. However, during cross-examination, significant admissions revealed that alternative premises were available to the landlord.

• Evidence in Favor of Tenant:
  The tenant successfully demonstrated that the premises were still in use for business, and the landlord's hardship claim was weak. The daughter-in-law admitted that she could conduct her business from another property owned by the landlord, and no difficulty would arise if the eviction was denied.

1. Facts of the Case:
   The plaintiffs, owners of a property, filed a suit for possession alleging unlawful subletting and non-use by the tenant. The case later focused solely on the landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use.

2. Trial Court’s Decision:
   The Trial Court ruled in favor of the landlord, ordering the tenant's eviction based on the landlord's claim that the premises were required for the daughter-in-law’s business.

3. Appellate Decision:
   The Appellate Bench upheld the eviction decree. The tenant subsequently filed a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Cross-examination and Admissions:
   During the proceedings, the daughter-in-law admitted that alternative premises were available, including a vacant room with a commercial electricity connection. She also stated that no hardship would arise if the eviction was refused.

5. Court's Ratio:
   The Court emphasized that the landlord failed to prove genuine hardship or a bona fide requirement. The tenant’s ongoing use of the premises for business further justified refusing the eviction. The doctrine of "landlord being the best judge" was rejected in this case, as the landlord had sufficient alternative space.

6. Decision:
   The Court set aside the eviction order, ruling that the landlord had not adequately demonstrated a need for the premises and that the comparative hardship was in favor of the tenant.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 16(2) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act:
  Discussed to analyze the comparative hardship between landlord and tenant.

• Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
  Invoked for the revision application against the lower courts’ judgments.

• Section 30 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act:
  Cited regarding the prohibition on converting residential premises for commercial use.

Subjects:

#Eviction #LandlordTenant #BonaFideRequirement #RealEstateDisputes