KISHANLAL LAXMINARAYAN KARAVA Vs. SHALINIBAI
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 07,1990

KISHANLAL LAXMINARAYAN KARAVA Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Shalinibai Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

M QUDRATHULLAH VS. PATEL SHAMSUNNISSA BEGUM [LAWS(MAD)-2000-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
KAILESH BABUBHAI PRAJAPATI VS. NAGINBHAI FAKIRBHAI PRAJAPATI AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2010-6-109] [REFERRED TO]
KHOJA HABIB JAFAR VS. ALIBHAI MAMAD MOMNA [LAWS(GJH)-1994-4-2] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- The cause of this appeal by special leave is an eviction suit filed by the appellant to have evicted the respondent from a premises situate in the town of Phaltan in the State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the appellant that he was a tenant in some premises -and his landlord had Asked him to quit. In strained circumstances, he alleges, he purchased the property in dispute in order to live in it. As per the Plan which is part of the Paper Book, the premises can be divided in two parts. The front built up portion opens on the main road and on the rear side is a common courtyard. The other built up portion opens on the rear side road and at the rear of it is the aforementioned common courtyard. In one room of the rear side portion, there is a tenant with which we are not concerned. The remaining portion is in possession of the landlord, which comprises of two rooms and a bathroom. The tenanted portion is a bigger portion and better situated as it opens on the main road as also in the common courtyard.
(2.)The landlord pleaded before the trial court that he required the premises in possession of the tenant for bona fide use and occupation as the portion already in his occupation was dilapidated and was not worth living. The claim of the landlord was contested. The trial Court found against the appellant and rejected his claim. On appeal, however, the Appellate Court took a different view. The Appellate Court found that on the facts and circumstances of the, case, it could be said that the appellant reasonably and bona fide required the premises in his building for his own occupation. When venturing to discuss the issue of comparative hardship in the case, as required under S. 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Appellate Court seemingly was in favour of the appellant but did not express its views in so many words. A via media apparently was found when the appellant's counsel suggested before it that there could be exchange of possession between the landlord and the tenant of the portions of the house in their respective possession, and the tenant could continue as such on the, same terms in the exchanged premises. Some time was sought on behalf of the tenant for shifting which was granted. On these terms, the appeal was allowed, ordering exchange of premises.
(3.)The judgment and decree of the Appellate Court was questioned by means of a Writ Petition in the High Court. The High Court took the view that S. 13(2) of the Act only required comparative hardship to be seen in the event of the bona fide need of the landlord being established but the provision nowhere permitted an exchange of premises. On that basis, the Writ Petition was allowed and the eviction suit of the appellant dismissed which has given rise to this appeal by special leave.
;


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