Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

DATED : 25th APRIL, 2022.

By this writ petition, the petitioners i.e. the tenants have challenged orders passed by the two Courts below, whereby a decree of eviction has been granted against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent i.e. the landlord.

02] It was the case of the respondent i.e. the original plaintiff that plot, bearing No.176 situated in Ward No.23, Bagadganj, Nagpur, admeasruing 13241 square feet belonging to the respondent, was given on rent to the original defendant No.1. The respondent filed a suit for eviction on three grounds under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). On the ground under Section 16(1)(e) pertaining to unlawful subletting, on the ground under Section 16(1)(g) pertaining to bonafide need and under Section 16(1)(n) pertaining to the premises not having been used for the purpose for which they were let out. The defendants-petitioners before this Court resisted the aforesaid suit, claiming that none of the three grounds were made out.

-4- 28.WP.3530.2021.odt area, the user of which is limited to workshop and industry. It was submitted that the bonafide need projected on behalf of the respondent was that he intended to start transport business in the said plot. It was submitted that since the said business had no concern with manufacture or of any activity akin to workshop in a factory area, the said ground was untenable. It was submitted that since the business for which the bonafide need was projected on behalf of the respondent could never be undertaken in the plot in question, the plea of bonafide need of the respondent could never have been accepted. It was further submitted that the respondent was admittedly a resident of Jabalpur and he had no concern with the city of Nagpur, further indicating that an artificial need was projected as bonafide need on the part of the respondent, which was not appreciated in the correct perspective by the two Courts below.

13] On the other hand, Mr. R.M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the District Court was justified, not only in confirming the finding on the question of bonafide need, but also the findings rendered on the other two grounds for eviction as they were supported by the oral and documentary evidence on record. It was submitted that the allegation that the respondent had made a false statement in the plaint, was not borne out from the record. Insofar as bonafide need was concerned, it was submitted that the suit plot admittedly could be used for industry and the projected need of the respondent was for carrying out transport business, which could certainly qualify as industry, even going by the general definition of "industry" given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even otherwise, it

                         -8-                     28.WP.3530.2021.odt


18]        Insofar as the other aspects of the bonafide need

are concerned, the material on record was sufficient to indicate that the location of the plot in question, the intention of the respondent to initiate such business and the fact that Nagpur city being centrally located in the country, is ideally suited for transport business, could not be denied by the petitioners. It is settled law that insofar as the bonafide need is concerned, the landlord is the best judge of his need and he is entitled to take possession of his premises for bonafide need as demonstrated by leading cogent evidence. This Court is of the opinion that the respondent succeeded in projecting the case of bonafide need and that the two Courts below were justified in holding in favour of the respondent in that regard.