Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ig He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dinanath and another Vs. Gopala Krishna (dead) by L.Rs. (AIR 1990 SC 1355) in support of the said proposition. He has placed reliance on certain other decisions of this court by pointing out that even on merits the plaintiffs have no case. He contended that the alleged bonafide need is set out in the plaint only in one sentence. He submitted that that no particulars of bonafide need have been pleaded and no material facts have been pleaded in the plaint. Even the evidence of the landlord is very sketchy on this aspect. He submitted that it is obvious that there are other properties in the vicinity of the suit plot where the landlord could have carried out the construction. He submitted that even on merits, this is the case where bonafide need was not established. The last submission made by him is based on the fact that one of the legal representatives of the landlord viz; the respondent No.1-G filed a suit for partition claiming 1/7th share in the suit plot and the said suit has been partly decreed by holding that the said respondent 1-G was entitled to 1/38th share in various properties including the suit plot. It is pointed out that the First Appeal against the said decree is pending in this court. He submitted that this factor also needs to be considered as in view of pendency of the appeal against decree, it is not clear as to who will get the possession of the suit plot as and when the decree for partition is executed.

                                                (Emphasis added)




                                    
     14     On    plain    reading     of    the     decision            of      the
     Division Bench, it is obvious
                        ig                          that the Division

Bench was not called upon to decide the question as to what is the nature of the reasonable and bonafide need under section 13(1) (i) or what are the ingredients of such bonafide need. The Division Bench was not called upon to decide the nature of burden on the landlord to prove the ground under section 13(1) (i) of the Bombay Rent Act. The issue decided by the Division Bench was when the landlord required an open land for construction of a new building which of the two clauses viz. (i) or (g) of section 13 (1) will be attracted. It must be noted here that in paragraph 19, the Division Bench has expressly upheld the decision in case of Vasant (supra) which on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dinanath (supra) holds that the landlord has to establish the reasonable and bonafide requirement irrespective of the fact that he has obtained sanction from the local authority and he has a capacity to carry on construction.

chief of the original plaintiff runs only into 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph contains the description of the property and incorporates a reference to the permission for construction.

The second paragraph contains a statement that he requires the suit plot to construct a new building. In the said paragraph he has given estimated cost of construction and the details of the amounts possessed by him. In the 3rd paragraph, it is stated that the the deceased tenant might have spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- for construction of sheds, but his heirs are having another suitable plot. Thus, the original landlord has not at all stated the particulars or details of alleged bonafide need. In fact, if the entire examination-in-chief is read, it appears that except for stating that he requires the suit plot for construction of a new building, there is not even a whisper of any details of the bonafide requirement, In paragraph 9 of the cross examination, he has admitted that at Nasik Road, he owns many buildings but not open sites. He admitted that he owns a plot near the suit plot which is let out to a tenant who has installed a petrol pump on the open land. He admitted that the said plot is also abutting the Ambedkar Road. The said plot and the suit plot ig originally formed part of the same survey No. 235 /2B. He admitted that he had applied for permission to erect the building on the said plot on which the petrol pump has been installed. He pleaded ignorance about the time when he applied. He accepted that the plan was not approved as the site was in possession of a tenant. He further stated that he was the owner of an open space admeasuring 2 gunthas abutting Ambedkar Road which has been let out to the different persons who have put up sheds. He stated that the said site was in his possession. He admitted that it has been held that the construction of the sheds is unauthorised. He admitted at Ambedkar Road he owns a residential chawl. He has also admitted that at Sallenagar, he was holding open plots which have been let out to the tenants who have constructed the premises thereon. He admitted that he was the owner and in possession of a bungalow having two stories at Nasik Road.

This is a case where even the purpose for which he proposes to construct a building on the suit plot has not been set out by the landlord. The entire approach of the Appellate Court is not only erroneous but is contrary to the law. The Appellate Court proceeded on erroneous assumption that the landlord was not required to prove the bonafide need. The landlord has neither pleaded nor proved the bonafide need. There is no finding recorded of existence of such a bonafide need.