Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that bonafide need is found to be concurrently established by both the Courts and hence that finding cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. According to him, when bonafide need is established and landlords have no other premises to start their own business, the decree of eviction cannot be denied only because of the finding that more hardship will be caused to the tenant. His contention is, such hardship is not proved & in present circumstances also not very relevant and could not have been used by appellate Court to reverse the decree of eviction.

8. The consideration of controversy by the Small Causes Court reveals that the issue regarding bonafide and reasonable need and also about comparative hardship was framed by it. It has after considering the evidence which has come on record, recorded a finding that bonafide need for use of suit shop for their own use has been established by landlords. In para 13 of the judgment, it has then considered the aspect of comparative hardship. The evidence on record for this purpose has been looked into. The contention of tenant that landlord had a settled business at Shahid Chowk, Itwari, Nagpur, has been also considered. His contention that only one shop block out of his possession can at the most be given to landlords has also been taken note of. The Small Causes Court thereafter has pointed out that in cross examination of tenant, it was brought on record that petitioner No. 1 - Gyanchand is carrying on business in half portion of shop at Shahid Chowk while other half portion of shop is with his brother. Petitioner No. 1 is carrying on business of ready-made garments while his brother is doing business of bags.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that regard must be had to all circumstances of the case and the question whether reasonable accommodation is available for landlord or tenant. In this background, learned Single Judge in para 14 has held that requirement of Section 16(2) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, is interlinked with its second part ie about partial eviction and hence entire provision of Section 16(1)(g) and Section 16(2) with the second part has to be read as a whole and construed harmoniously. A statutory duty is cast upon the Court to make an enquiry into the extent of need of landlord even if such need is found to be reasonable and bonafide. The right of landlords to seek eviction on one hand and protection granted to the tenant on the ground of hardship can be balanced by the Court by making enquiry into the existence of bonafide need and greater hardship which would be caused by passing the decree rather than by refusing to pass it, to meet the ends of justice.

godown. Their existing business at Shahid Chouk is in small tenanted premises. In this situation, it cannot be said that bonafide need is not established. The admission given by the tenant himself in his cross examination has been used by Small Causes Court to record a finding in favour of the landlord. It is upheld by the appellate Court. I, therefore, find no substance in the contention of the tenant that bonafide need has not been established in the matter.