Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Thus, issue No.1 relates to the question as to whether house tax was payable by the defendants; issue No.2 relates to the question as to whether the defendants committed default in payment of rent; and issue No.7 refers to the claim of the plaintiffs for standard rent. Issue No.6 relates to the ground of eviction because of nuisance whereas issues Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 11 take into comprehension the inter-related questions of reasonable and bona fide requirement, comparative hardship, and partial eviction. Issues Nos. 8, 9 and 10 refer to the objections of the defendants on the frame of the suit.
In relation to the Commissioner's report, objections were filed by the plaintiffs on 08.08.2006 and by the defendants on 05.04.2007. The defendants further filed a reply to the objections as taken by the plaintiffs on 27.04.2007 whereas the plaintiffs also filed a reply to the objections of the defendants on 27.04.2007.
23
The learned Trial Court thereafter proceeded to analyse minutely the accommodation available in the suit premises and pondered over various permutations and combinations for the purpose of partial eviction and ultimately carved out the requisite portion for the purpose of partial eviction and also directed that the defendants would not use the open space in front of the record room for the purpose of parking and passed a so-called final decree in the following terms:
Per contra, and while maintaining that the plaintiffs have been able to establish their reasonable and bona fide requirement, learned counsel for the plaintiffs strenuously contended that in the overall circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court was not justified in passing a decree for partial eviction only for 250 square feet area without even a finding as to which portion of the suit premises was considered proper and sufficient to meet with the requirement? Learned counsel referred to Section 14 of the Act of 1950 and submitted that the procedure as adopted by the learned Trial Court was not correct inasmuch as only if at the time of passing of decree, the Court is having material to find that the need could be satisfied by partial eviction that such a decree for part of the premises could be granted; and, according to the learned counsel, the scheme of the Act of 1950 does not envisage such an enquiry to be made after passing of the decree. Learned counsel submitted that even when suggesting that the requirement could be satisfied with one room, the defendants failed to point out as to which of the portion could be given to meet with such requirement and hence passing of a decree only for partial eviction was not justified. Learned counsel also referred to the fact that PW-3 Johrimal Mehta was not suggested if his requirement could be satisfied with partial eviction nor DW-1 Dinesh Goyal stated that partial eviction was possible. Learned counsel assailed the observations and findings in the later decree dated 03.04.2008 also and submitted that the directions to the landlord to use the store as kitchen and other similar nature directions were not in accord with human requirements.

Splitting up of tenancy in Section 14(2) of the Act of 1950 is envisaged by law only in the clear cases of satisfaction of the Court on the material available on record that no hardship would be caused by partial eviction. In the scheme of the said provisions, a doubtful position would, ordinarily, result only in the finding in the negative so far the question of partial eviction is concerned.

This aspect of the matter is not being dilated upon further because in this case, the finding on reasonable and bona fide requirement itself is not being sustained; however, had such finding been sustained, this Court is clearly of the view that on the state of record, there was no question of passing any decree for partial eviction and the plaintiffs would have been entitled for a decree for eviction for whole of the premises.