BABA KASHINATH BHINGE Vs. SAMAST LINGAYAT GAVALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-tenant had leave of this court against the judgment of the Bombay High court in Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1980 dated 27/06/1983. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13 (l) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment, on the ground that the respondent-landlord requires the premises bona fide for accommodation of pilgrims etc. The trial court dismissed but on appeal the District Judge granted decree of eviction. The High court in the writ petition affirmed it. Shri Tarkunde, for the appellant, pressed for consideration threefold contentions. Firstly, that the respondent had not pleaded specific requirement to show its bona fides and the courts below ought to have nonsuited the landlord for lack of proper pleading. Secondly, he contended that before the decree of eviction was passed in 1980, the respondent-trust had let out in 1979 two shops of the upper portion of the building to new tenants which would show that the need is not bona fide. Thirdly, he contended that for over 60 years the appellant has been carrying on the sale of sweetmeats business in the demised premises. If a partial eviction is ordered, no undue hardship would be caused either to the respondent or to the appellant and the courts below have not considered this aspect in proper perspective. We find no force in any of the contentions. It is true that the pleading of the respondents' case is not precise and no specific requirement was pleaded but once the parties properly understood the case of each other, issues were framed and evidence was adduced, technicalities of pleadings recede to the background. Admittedly, the respondent is a public trust and its accommodation is meant for pilgrims in Pandharpur which is one of the well-known pilgrim centres in Maharashtra. Therefore, in the nature of the service being rendered to the pilgrims, it is not practicable to plead in specific terms the nature of the need of the respondent landlord except to say that it is a bona fide requirement for pilgrims. On that ground the respondent cannot be non-suited when he succeeded in two courts.

(2.) Equally it is settled by this court in series of judgments and a reference in this behalf would be sufficient by citing Hasmat Rai v. Raghu Nath Prasad that in a case of bona fide requirement, it is always necessary, till the decree of eviction is passed that the landlord should satisly that the need is bona fide and the need subsists. In a case where the need is available at the time of filing thepetition, but at the time of granting decree it may not continue to subsist, in that event, the decree for eviction could not be made. Similarly pending appeal or revision or writ petition, the need may become more acute. The court should take into account all the subsequent events to mould the relief. The High court may not be justified in omitting to consider this aspect of the matter but that does not render the judgment illegal for the subsequent discussion we are going to make.

(3.) In this case admittedly pursuant to an application made by the respondent, the learned District Judge made personal inspection and has also drawn a plan and report Ex. 17 which became part of the record. While considering the matter the learned District Judge in paragraph 27 has stated that the need of the respondent is: