Dismissed

M/S Haryana Hardware and General Stores,through Its Proprietor, Mrs. Sunita W/O Rajesh Agrawal and v. Ramniwas S/O Jawrilal Kabra (Huf), through Its Karta Shri Ramniwas S/O Jawrilal Kabra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2014WP/1689/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging eviction order was dismissed as the High Court was satisfied with lower courts' findings that the landlord established a bonafide requirement and tenants failed to prove comparative hardship.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Haryana Hardware and General Stores,through Its… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

0204wp1689.14.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.1689 of 2014

¶5

[M/s. Haryana Hardware & General Stores, Nagpur, through its Proprietor, and others v. Ramniwas s/o Jawrilal Kabra (HUF)]

¶6

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Atul Pande, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

Shri R.M. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

¶10

Dated : 2nd April, 2014

¶11

This petition challenges the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, holding that the respondent-landlord has established bona fide requirement and the petitioner-tenants have failed to established the comparative hardship. The contention of Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Atul Pande, Advocate for the petitioner-tenants, is that both the Courts below have failed to perform their statutory duty of recording the finding in respect of partial eviction. He further submits that the question of comparative hardship has also not been considered by both the Courts below.

¶12

The requirement putforth by the respondent-land is for

¶13

¶14

0204wp1689.14.odt

¶15

running the marble business by his two grandsons. The petitioner-tenants are occupying the shop blocks of 640 sq.ft. on the ground floor and 790 sq.ft. on the mezzanine floor for commercial purposes. The respondent-landlord is the best Judge to decide the extent of area required for the business of his two grandsons. This requirement of 2,000 sq.ft. putforth by the respondent-landlord is not disputed. The question of partial eviction does not at all arise in the present case, for the reason that the area of 1350 sq.ft. in occupation of the two grandsons of the respondent-landlord is on rental basis and the total area required is of 2,000 sq.ft. The grandsons are required to pay rent higher than the rent which they are fetching in respect of the suit premises. The area in occupation and possession of the petitioner-tenants is approximately 1,430 sq.ft. consisting of ground and first floors.

¶16

The aspect of comparative hardship is also considered by the Courts below. The findings of the Trial Court on the aspect of comparative hardship are reproduced below :

¶17

“... In the present suit, DW-1 Sunita Agarwal clearly admitted in cross examination that after 20/02/2004 they have not searched for other alternate accommodation. This admission given by DW-1 Sunita clearly shows that defendants have not made any efforts to search alternate accommodation so ratio laid down in the above authority is applicable to the present case also. So issue of comparative hardship has to be decided against the defendants.”

¶18

¶19

0204wp1689.14.odt

¶20

“ I have gone through this authority. Learned counsel for defendants gave much stress on the point that another shop of 300 sq.ft. is available to the Manoj Kabra. So he would not suffer any hardship if decree of eviction is refused. However it has come on record that shop of 300 sq.ft. is situated in basement and it is not on the main road so it is not suitable for the business of Manoj. So it is clear that the contention of learned counsel for defendants that another shop is available to the grand sons of plaintiff, so no hardship would be caused to the plaintiff, can not be accepted. On the other hand, it is established by the plaintiff that grand sons of plaintiff namely Manoj and Vinod are running their businesses in rented premises and they would suffer greater hardship if decree of eviction is refused. Hence I have answered point no.2 accordingly.”

¶21

At any rate, it is a possible view of the matter, which does not call for any interference.

¶22

The petition is dismissed.

¶23

Judge

¶24

PDL

M/S Haryana Hardware and General Stores,through Its Proprietor, Mrs. Sunita W/O Rajesh Agrawal and v. Ramniwas S/O Jawrilal Kabra (Huf), through Its Karta Shri Ramniwas S/O Jawrilal Kabra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Haryana Hardware and General Stores,through Its Proprietor, Mrs. Sunita W/O Rajesh Agrawal and v. Ramniwas S/O Jawrilal Kabra (Huf), through Its Karta Shri Ramniwas S/O Jawrilal Kabra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.K. Khapre Vidyalaya, through Its Administrator, Thugaon Pimpri and Another Vs Angad Natthuji Taide and Another

Syed Haji Rahematullah Alahe Dargah Trust, through Its President, Yunus Khan S/O Harun Khan Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Akola and 2 Others

Omiya Saw Mill Akot, through Its Partner, Shri Devsi Karsan Patel Vs Shamsundar Mulimanohar Shrawgi and Others

Lalit S/O Ramprakash Sood Vs Ritesh Sood S/O Vinod Sood and Another

Mohommad Ishfaque S/O Sheikh Chote Vs Harilal S/O Udhomal Ahuja

Bhanudas Shankar Aghadate Vs Sau. Kalavatibai Babulal Aghadate and Another