This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a rent suit and civil appeal. The High Court observed that the lower courts recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner lacked bona fide need for eviction, thus rejecting the writ challenge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp5368.95
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5368 OF 1995
Sudamdeo Sonu Nikam, Age 69 years, Occ. Retired servant, R/o. Patankar's Wada, Behind Tadi Shop, Near Mamaji Talkies, Satara File, Bhusawal District Jalgaon ...Petitioner
versus
Anantrao Raoji Shinde, (since deceased by his L.Rs.)
1A) Smt. Vijaylaxmi Anantrao Shinde Age 62 years, Occ. Household 1B) Prataprao Anantrao Shinde, Age 47 years, Occ. Stamp Vendor and Partition writer in Mamlatdar's Office, Bhusawal. 1C) Vijayshinha Anantrao Shinde Age 42 years, Occ. Spare part and scooter repairer, Nos. 1A to 1C resident of Methaji Plots, Behind Vasant Talkies, Before Dr. Bholane's Dispensary, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon ...Respondents ….. Mr. V.T. Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
wp5368.95
-2-
Suit No. 168 of 1985 under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act for possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal bonafide requirements as provided under Section 13(1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, the defendant is tenant in the suit premises, paying rent Rs.105/- p.m.. The defendant has paid rent up to the end of January, 1981. It is the contention of the petitionerplaintiff that he is residing in another house and present accommodation came to the share of his brother Dattatraya in partition. After partition, since the said property was allotted to the share of brother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is residing in the house as a tenant. Thereafter, dispute arose between the plaintiff and his brother Dattatraya and said brother Dattatraya had instituted a suit for possession in the year 1975. In the year 1976, the respondent defendant was in need of house accommodation and accordingly demanded the suit premises for residence on rent. It is contended that at that time plaintiff gave idea to the respondent-defendant that his brother has already instituted a suit to vacate the present premises and therefore, he would require the suit premises in case his brother succeeds in the pending litigation. The suit instituted by said brother Dattatraya came to be decided against the petitionerplaintiff and though the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree insisting the defendant to
wp5368.95
-3-
vacate the premises, even said pending appeal also came to be decided against the petitioner-plaintiff. However, the defendant has refused to vacate the suit premises. According to the petitionerplaintiff, he is having reasonable need and having bonafide requirements of the suit premises for his residence purpose. He has no other accommodation available to reside except the suit premises. The petitioner-plaintiff is retired in the month of January, 1983. He is having four daughters and one son. The defendant is doing the business of stamp vendor and petition writer. Accordingly, the petitioner-plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant of his requirement of suit premises for his bonafide need and instituted the suit.
wp5368.95
-4-
pleaded that the petitioner-plaintiff is desiring to sell out the suit premises as he will get the good market price and the petitionerplaintiff is also having suitable alternate accommodation. It has also been contended by the defendant that the petitioner-plaintiff is not in bonafide requirement but has filed the suit to get excessive rent and defendant would suffer greater hardship if the suit is decreed.
by the petitioner-plaintiff is concerned for seeking decree of eviction
wp5368.95 -5-
under the provisions of 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act, the learned Judge of the trial court while answering issue No.4 has observed that though the brother of the petitioner-plaintiff has instituted R.C.S. No. 525 of 1975 against the petitioner-plaintiff, but on the very next day of institution of suit, the petitioner-plaintiff let out the suit premises to the respondent-defendant. As such, from the facts of the case, it is evident that the petitioner-plaintiff had no bonafide and reasonable need of the suit premises. Further, from 30.12.1975 till 21.8.1981, the petitioner-plaintiff had issued receipts showing that he received rent from the defendant and till that he has never issued any notice to the defendant to vacate the premises owing to his bonafide need of the suit premises. The trial court has also observed that it has come in the evidence of the petitionerplaintiff that he sold out another property on 10.5.1985 when he was owner of two residential house properties. It thus appears that the trial court has discussed oral and documentary evidence at great length and recorded a finding to issue No.4 in negative holding thereby that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in bonafide need of the suit house for his residence. The learned Judge of the trial court has also recorded a finding in negative to issue No.5 with specific observations that defendant will suffer great hardship if the suit is decreed.
wp5368.95 -6-
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
Sudamdeo Sonu Nikam
Anantrao Raoji Shinde
Smt. Vijaylaxmi Anantrao Shinde
Prataprao Anantrao Shinde
Vijayshinha Anantrao Shinde
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
