Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The judgment of this Court in the case of Bismilla Bee vs. Mohd. Anwar, (supra) shows that it interprets the impact of the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Rent Act dealing with partial eviction. The learned Single Judge of this Court has there in para 13 after noticing that said provision is parimateria with Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, reported at 2003 (2) SCC 320.

There, the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that said Section 13(2) does not bar a partial eviction being ordered and/ or contemplated a partial eviction specifically, which would depend on answer to the question whether it would be only to dislodge the tenant from only part of premises in his possession. The consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court shows that the burden of proving availability of grounds for such partial eviction is on tenant. The parties are expected to raise specific pleadings and the Court has to frame issues based on those pleadings so as to enable the parties to plead evidence to enable the court to form an opinion on the issue of comparative hardship. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also noticed there in para 11 that provisions of Bombay Rent Act do not lay down any guidelines or relevant factors for determination of question of comparative hardship.

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.

Consideration in para 12 shows that the petitioner there had pleaded and established his need and also non availability of any other place. He was at the relevant time staying in one room accommodation in attic portion of the suit building. The tenant on the other hand has stated in written statement that he would suffer more hardship if the decree was to be passed. He pointed out that he was staying in suit premises for over 43 years and no other accommodation for residing was available in the locality or city of Pune. The further allegations reveal that huge deposit was required to get residential accommodation on lease. The learned Single Judge found that the financial condition of tenant has to be taken into account while considering this issue but that alone cannot be the basis to answer the issue one way or the other. Merely because tenant cannot afford another accommodation, it would not be proper to deny relief of possession to the landlord. Thus question of partial eviction did not crop up there for answer. But then it is clear that appellate Court has erroneously declined the decree to landlords on the ground of comparative hardship and the finding of Small Cause Court in that respect needs to be restored.