Dismissed

Mohammad Yakub Munawar and Anr. v. Kartikeshwar Balchand Choudhari and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2009WP/541/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging an order regarding eviction. The High Court observed no appearance by petitioners and proceeded against counsel for the respondent. It upheld the lower appellate court's finding that the landlord had a bona fide requirement of the premises. The Court rejected comparative hardship as a sole criteria where the tenant failed to prove inability to find alternative accomm

What did the court decide?

No interference warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction; order of the lower appellate court stands.

Mohammad Yakub Munawar and Anr. Vs Kartikeshwar Balchand… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.541 OF 1992

¶4

 Mohammed Yakub Munwar & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Kartikeshwar Balchand Choudhari
 & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 None for Petitioners.

¶8

 Mr.S.D.Karwande for Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 FEBRUARY 5, 2009.

¶11

 P.C.

¶12

 1. None appears for the Petitioners when the

¶13

 matter is called out. The name of the Advocate on
 record for the Petitioners was notified on the
 Electronic Board. Even for more than 30 minutes,
 no appearance was made on behalf of the
 Petitioners. In the meantime, I had commenced the
 hearing of the matter with the assistance of the
 Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

¶14

 : 2 :

¶15

 2. Having gone through the Judgment under

¶16

 Appeal, it is noticed that amongst others, the
 Appellate Court has affirmed the Plaintiff’s claim
 that the suit premises were required for occupation
 for himself as well as his family members. In
 other words, the issue of bonafide and reasonable
 requirement has been answered against the tenant
 and in favour of the landlord. The Court below has
 adverted to all the relevant aspects for reaching
 at this conclusion. The Court below has recorded
 that the family of the Plaintiff consisted of
 himself, his wife, three children, two sisters and
 one son and three children of his widowed daughter.
 They had only one room bearing house No.207 in
 their occupation admeasuring about 12’x 18’ only.

¶17

 Indeed, the tenant raised several issues to doubt

¶18

 the bonafide and reasonable requirement of the
 Plaitniff. All those matters have been considered

¶19

 by the Appellate Court in Paragraph 10 of the
 impugned Judgment. The view taken in that behalf
 is a possible view. Merely because some other view
 is possible on reappreciating the same evidence,

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 cannot be the basis to overturn the finding of fact
 recorded by the Appellate Court so as to exercise
 writ jurisdiction.

¶22

 3. The Court below has found as of fact that

¶23

 the Plaintiff had established that he had real
 intention to occupy the suit premises after the
 same were vacated by the Respondent/tenant. Even
 that finding is correct. The Appellate Court has
 rightly observed that the landlord is the best
 judge of his need and the need which is pressed
 into service was very much available and in
 existence.

¶24

 4. Insofar as the issue of comparative
 hardship, the Court has considered the relevant
 aspects including the fact that if the tenant was
 required to vacate the suit premises, will have to
 move out along with 11 family members. But has
 rightly observed that the same cannot be the sole
 criteria for answering the issue. The Appellate
 Court has noted that the suit premises were let out
 for residential use. It is well established
 position that unless the tenant was to assert and

¶25

 : 4 :

¶26

 prove the fact that inspite of best efforts, it was
 not possible to secure another premises in the same
 locality, the question of answering the issue
 against the landlord will not arise. Applying that
 basis in the fact situation of the present case,
 there is nothing to indicate that the tenant is not
 in a position to secure another premises in the
 same locality. It is not the case of the tenant
 that such unsuccessful attempt was made.

¶27

 5. Taking overall view of the matter, no
 interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is
 warranted. Dismissed.

¶28

 6. After the order is dictated, the
 Sheristedar has invited my attention to the fact
 that leave note has been filed by Mr.Gorwadkar for
 excusing his Court appearance on 5th February 2009
 and 9th February 2009. However, inspite of this
 leave note, Mr.Gorwardkar had made appearance in
 some other matter today which was also kept for
 hearing. No mentioning was made that he would not
 be in a position to attend the present matter.
 Inspite of the leave note now brought to my notice,

¶29

 : 5 :

¶30

 for this reason, the order already passed shall
 remain.

¶31

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Mohammad Yakub Munawar and Anr. v. Kartikeshwar Balchand Choudhari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Yakub Munawar and Anr. v. Kartikeshwar Balchand Choudhari 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

Madhukar Parshuram Mane Vs Shakuntala Manohar Potdar and Ors.

Audumbar S. Gadhave Vs Ramchandra S. Khalavkar

Santosh Sitaram Bhopale Vs Sitaram Bhairu Bhople (Decd.)by Lrs. - Sheela Bhauso Kamble and Ors.

Habib Ismail Memorial Trust Vs Murlidhar Panwala

Parvatabai Gangaram Shinde Vs Parvatabai Arjun More and Ors.

Shri Suresh J Kale Vs Shri Sadashiv Mahadeo @(Mahadu) Kale and Ors.