Dismissed

Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar and Ors. v. Rajaram Ramji Kadam and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2006WP/897/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a decree for possession. The court held that the lower appellate court applied its mind properly and its findings on the lease tenancy and bonafide requirements were just and legal, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition dismissed with no order as to costs; three calendar months' time granted for vacating premises conditional on undertaking and continued rent.

Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar and Ors. Vs Rajaram Ramji Kadam… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.897 OF 2006

¶5

 Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar & Ors. .. ..Petitioners
 Versus

¶6

 Rajaram Ramji Kadam & ors. .. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr.V.T.Walawalkar with Sameer R. Bhalekar for petitioners
 Mr.Sachindra B.Shetye for resopndents

¶8

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

¶9

 DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2006

¶10

 P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
 Perused the record.

¶12

 2. The defendant-tenant has preferred this petition
 against the judgement and order passed by lower appellate
 court dated 24.11.2005 dismissing the appeal and
 confirming the judgement and order passed by trial court
 dated 31.12.2002 partly decreeing the suit and issuing
 direction for delivering vacant and peaceful possession
 of the suit premises to the landlord-respondent.

¶13

 3. The Shop premises admeasuring 31.82 sq.mtrs. out
 of single storeyed Municipal House No.1789 of Chiplun,

¶14

 : 2 :

¶15

 Dist. Ratnagiri is the subject matter of the suit. The

¶16

 plaintiffs-respondents came with the case that the
 deceased tenant and/or his heirs erected permanent
 structure on the suit premises and have caused damaged to
 the property and have committed an act contrary to

¶17

 Section 108(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. It was
 further alleged that the plaintiffs were required to take

¶18

 up odd jobs elsewhere due to non availability of the suit
 premises and require the suit premises reasonably and
 bonafide to start their own business. It was further
 contended that the plaintiff no.1 was constrained to
 carry on business as a hawker at village Kalwande Tal.
 Chiplun, whereas plaintiff no.2 was constrained to work

¶19

 as agricultural labourer on daily wages in the farm of

¶20

 others at village Kalwande. Plaintiff No.3 was
 constrained to take a temporary employment of a bus

¶21

 conductor at Kalyan, whereas the plaintiff no.4 also was
 constrained to take temporary and odd employment as
 attendant on a petrol pump in Chiplun town. In view of
 this position, the suit premises was acquired for their
 own use and occupation to start their own business. On
 such and other ground the suit came to be filed.

¶22

 4. The defendant, inter alia, denied the allegations

¶23

 : 3 :

¶24

 and contested the suit on various aspects and sought
 dismissal of the suit.

¶25

 5. The learned trial judge after hearing both the
 parties and on the basis of available evidence came to
 the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved the
 reasonable and bonafide requirements of the suit premises
 for their use and occupation. It was also held that the
 plaintiffs would suffer greater hardship if the decree is
 refused to pass than the defendant if the decree is
 passed against them and decreed the suit for possession.

¶26

 . The appeal was carried to the Addl. District
 Judge, Khed, who after hearing both the parties and on
 the basis of available evidence concurred with the
 findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the
 appeal. Hence the present petition.

¶27

 6. At the outset, it may be noted that the learned
 counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the
 findings recorded by the lower appellate court with
 submission that it was apparent therefrom that there was
 no due application of mind by the lower appellate court,
 which was said to be manifest from the contents of para

¶28

 : 4 :

¶29

 43 of his judgment wherein he has summed-up the
 discussion on the issue of bonafide requirement with
 statement to the effect that it was sufficient to hold
 that the trial court had rightly believed the ground of
 reasonable and bonafide requirement and hence the finding
 was recorded to that effect.

¶30

 7. Now, if the matter would have rested at that,
 there was no doubt whatsoever that the contents of para
 43 of the lower appellate court judgment, read in
 isolation, would show that there is no application of
 mind. However, the other contents of the judgment
 revealed totally different story. I am satisfied that
 the learned lower appellate court judge has discussed the
 issue properly, as can be seen from the discussion
 thereon from para 36 onwards. It is also seen that while
 coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved
 their bonafide requirements of the suit premises, he has
 taken into account the evidence lead by both the parties.
 He has further come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
 would suffer greater hardship if the decree is refused to
 be passed than the defendant if the decree is passed by

¶31

 giving cogent and proper reasoning. In these
 circumstances, the argument that the lower appellate

¶32

 : 5 :

¶33

 court has not applied its mind properly while
 appreciating the evidence on record is devoid of any
 merits.

¶34

 8. Therefore, on perusal of the judgments of both
 the courts below, who have recorded the concurrent
 findings on the issue of bonafide requirement of the suit
 premises, I am satisfied that the reasoning adopted and
 findings recorded to that extent are seen to be just,
 legal and proper, there is absolutely no perversity nor
 any irregularity so as to necessitate interference by
 this court by virtue of provision of Article 227 of the
 Constitution.

¶35

 9. In the result, the petitioner has no merits and
 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶36

 10. At this stage the learned counsel for the
 petitioner sought some time to vacate the suit premises.
 In view of the facts and circumstances, the time of three
 calender months from today is granted for vacating the
 suit premises on condition that the petitioner and all
 adult members of his family shall furnish undertaking to
 that effect that they shall not create third party

¶37

 : 6 :

¶38

 interest in the suit premises during the period of their
 occupancy and shall continue to pay the agreed rent
 during the period of their occupancy. The undertaking to
 be furnished within two weeks from the date of this
 order. .

Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar and Ors. v. Rajaram Ramji Kadam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar and Ors. v. Rajaram Ramji Kadam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Subhash Dshala Kinjle Vs Smt. Indra Rani Uggarsen

Shrinath v. Chaturvedi and Anr. Vs Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani and Anr.

M/S. Chittaranjan Housing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Prithviraj Badriprasad Morya

Amar Kaur Suri and Anr. Vs Shapurbaug Consumers Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Arun Janaji Jadhav Vs Bachan Vasudeo Basushi Chaurasiya and Ors.

Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry Vs Helvetia Tours and Travel Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.