J MARATHE Vs. P V KALOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dated 28th September, 1989 in Appeal No. 507 of 1985 thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court dated 16th August, 1985 in R.A.E. and R. Suit No. 390/2552 of 1970.

(2.) The Respondent/landlord filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation as also possession of the premises bearing flat No. D-2, Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society situated at 653/654. 17th Road, Khar, Mumbai on the grounds of default, bona fide requirement, unlawful subletting and defendant having acquired alternative residential accommodation elsewhere. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent/landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement and tenant having secured alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere. The said decision was unsuccessfully carried in appeal by the Defendants/tenants. Even the Appellate Court confirmed the decree for possession on the aforesaid two grounds, while dismissing the Appeal preferred by the tenants. Against these concurrent decisions present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the tenants.

(3.) Insofar as the ground of bona fide requirement, the Respondent averred in his plaint that he required the suit premises reasonably, bona fide and for his own use and occupation. He further asserted that he had no other residential premises of his own elsewhere. The tenants/defendants in the Written Statement merely denied the claim of the Plaintiff that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was staying along with his father in the same building Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in another flat, which premises were sufficient for the Plaintiff. The Defendants further stated that they had no other premises in Mumbai and greater hardship would be caused to them, if they were ordered to be evicted. The defendants denied that the first Defendant was not in possession and the second defendant was unlawful occupant of the suit premises. This is the only case made out by the Defendants in the Written Statement, as can be discerned from para-5 thereof.