Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held that a landlord is the best judge of his own requirement while setting aside an appellate order that had denied eviction.
Case Background
The court restored the trial court’s decree in favour of legal heirs of deceased landlord Pandurang Tatu Keni, who had sought eviction of his tenant from a Deonar shop for bona fide use.
Keni had originally filed the suit in 1980 under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, seeking eviction on multiple grounds including default, non-user, and personal requirement.
He amended the plaint in 1993 stating that, being without steady income, he wished to use the shop for estate agency work, while his daughter Charulata, a non-matric with tailoring skills, required it for business.
The trial court in 1997 accepted the claim, finding the requirement genuine and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, and ordered eviction. The tenant filed an appeal before the appellate court.
Appellate Court Reversal and Challenge
During pendency, Keni died in 2000 and Charulata married in 1999. Relying on these developments, the appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the need no longer survived.
Challenging this, Keni’s other daughters argued that the appellate court perversely relied on subsequent events and wrongly faulted the landlord for amending his pleadings after 13 years. They stressed that the requirement did not extinguish with Keni’s death or Charulata’s marriage, and that the landlord’s testimony sufficed to establish bona fide need.
High Court Verdict
Justice Milind Sathaye, on September 23, agreed with Keni’s daughter observing that residential premises cannot be equated with shop premises when business requirement is pleaded. The appellate court’s finding that the landlord’s wish to start estate agency work was “not believable” was termed perverse.
Justice Sathaye underlined that once the landlord explained inconvenience of conducting business from his residence and his daughter’s tailoring on the mezzanine floor, the need stood proved. “If this is not sufficient for the landlord to prove his bona fide requirement, I wonder what more is required,” the Court remarked.
Comparative Hardship Considered
On comparative hardship, the HC found that the tenant had already shifted his ration shop elsewhere and admitted not making efforts to find alternative premises. The trial court had rightly held that hardship tilted towards the landlord.
Also Watch:
Final Outcome
Allowing the writ petition, the HC set aside the 2000 appellate court’s order and confirmed eviction. However, following a request by the tenant, the HC stayed the operation of its order for four weeks.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
