Dismissed

Smt. Baby Bhagwan Pharate and Others v. Smt. Sushilabai Shivajirao Chavan Deceased Shalini Shivajirao Chavan and Others

Bombay HC28 Jan 2011CRA/15/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC in Civil Revision Application No. 15 of 2011 dismissed the application challenging an eviction decree. The court held that the lower courts had reasonably found the respondents required the premises for their own use and the applicants failed to seek alternative accommodation. Hardship was considered and affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision was dismissed and the eviction decree was affirmed.

Smt. Baby Bhagwan Pharate and Others Vs Smt. Sushilabai… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 CRA No.15/11

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.15 of 2011

¶5

(1) Smt.Baby Bhagwan Pharate

¶6

(2) Shri Sachin Bhagwan Pharate

¶7

(3) Smita Bhagwan Pharate

¶8

(4) Snehal Bhagwan Pharate

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

(1) Smt.Sushilabai S. Chavan(deceased)

¶12

1A. Shalini S. Chavan

¶13

1B. Vijaya Prabhakarrao Chavan

¶14

1C. Vishwas Shivajirao Chavan

¶15

1D Sunil Shivajirao Chavan ... Respondent

¶16

Mr. Subodh Shah for the applicants

¶17

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 28^th January 2011.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

This revision application is directed against a decree for eviction passed against the applicants (heirs of original tenant) by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

¶20

2 CRA No.15/11

¶21

The suit filed by the respondents for possession was decreed on the ground that respondents required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation. The trial court held that the requirement of the respondents was reasonable and bonafide and the finding is affirmed by the appellate court. The finding is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the question of greater hardship has not been considered by the courts below. The submission is without merit. In paragraph no.20 of the judgment of the trial court, it has considered the issue regarding hardship. Similarly, in paragraph no.21 of its decision the appellate court has also considered the issue regarding hardship. The two courts below have concurrently held that the tenant was expected to make efforts to find out alternative accommodation. Admittedly, the applicants made no attempt to find alternative accommodation and they have admitted so in their deposition. It is not a case wherein the efforts were made by the applicants to find out alternative accommodation and that they were unable to do so. In the circumstances, the finding about the greater hardship recorded by the two courts below is also a possible finding of fact which required no interference. Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(D.G.KARNIK, J)

Smt. Baby Bhagwan Pharate and Others v. Smt. Sushilabai Shivajirao Chavan Deceased Shalini Shivajirao Chavan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Baby Bhagwan Pharate and Others v. Smt. Sushilabai Shivajirao Chavan Deceased Shalini Shivajirao Chavan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vasant Pandurang Dalvi and Othrs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surekha Sharad Gardi (Garde) and Anr.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vithabai Ananda Kambale

Smt. Baby Bhagwan Pharate and Others Vs Smt. Sushilabai Shivajirao Chavan Deceased Shalini Shivajirao Chavan and Others

Mrs. Sharifa Bi Hanif Shaikh Vs 1. the Metropolitan and Regional Development Authority and Another.

Panjab and Maharashtra Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs Ravindra Vithal Prabhu and Other