Decided on March 25,1966



N.K.VAKIL - (1.) The petitioners in this civil revision application were tenants of a shop, which belonged to the opponents in the town of Dholka. The shop was taken on rent as a monthly tenant in 1949 and the petitioners since then carried on the business therein of selling tools and parts of machinery. Respondent No. 1 in partnership with two other persons was carrying on business in two shops adjoining each other. They deal in kerosene vegetable ghee cigarettes match-boxes grocery and other miscellaneous articles. They had also to hire godowns to store their goods. The respondents filed suit No. 71 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge at Dholka to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground inter alia of reasonable bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The suit was resisted by the present petitioners on several grounds. Inter alia they contended that the suit premises were not required by the landlord bonafide and reasonably for personal occupation and the suit was filed only with a view to force them to increase the rent That even if it were to be held that it was required for personal use by the landlord reasonably and bona fide they would suffer greater hardship if a decree were to be passed against them. They further contended that the notices given were not legal and there was no valid termination of the tenancy.
(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit premises were required by the landlord reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation and negatived all the contentions raised on behalf of the tenants. The tenants then filed appeal No. 112 of 1960. Only three points were raised before the lower appellate Court:- (i) Whether the respondents reasonably and bona fide required the leased premises ? (ii) If yes whether greater hardship would be caused by passing a for eviction of the tenant then by refusing to do so ? (iii) Whether the notice to quit was legal ? On all the three points the appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) On behalf of the applicants Mr. A. H. Mehta challenged the decisions of the two Courts on the following three grounds:- (1) There are two landlords who have filed the suit for evicting the tenants but the suit shop is admittedly required for personal bona fide use of plaintiff No. 1 only. No decree for eviction under sec. 13(1)(g) could be passed for the requirement even if reasonable and bona fide of only one of the joint owners. (2) There is no definite finding by either of the Courts that the suit shop is required for a specific bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. (3) On the question of relative hardship there is no finding given in accordance with the requirement of law by either of the Courts.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.