Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-WP3134.2022.doc below, on the question of bonafide need, did not deserve interference. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in the matter through counsel and the petition was taken up for disposal.

(9) Mr. Akshay Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted in the present case that the Courts below had completely ignored the requirement of Section 16(2) of the aforesaid Act, particularly the second limb thereof. It was submitted that the aspect of greater hardship was not properly analyzed on the basis of material on record and that the question as to whether decree of eviction could be passed in respect of only part of the premises, was not examined at all by the Courts below. By referring judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, 2003 (2) SCC 320 and judgments of this Court in the case of Bismilla Bee w/o SK. CHAND and anr. Vs. Mohd. Anwar s/o MOHD. AKHTAR 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 829 , Shri Ramesh s/o Danchand Waswani Vs. Yusufbhai Mukhtar Amir Varawalla (Writ Petition No.132/2011, decided on 28.02.2011) and Vasant Mahadeo Gujar Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh & anr. 2015 (5) Bom.C.R. 243 , it was contended that Section 16(2) of the said Act, particularly the second PAGE 5 OF 17

PAGE 10 OF 17

-WP3134.2022.doc (15) This Court in the case of Bismilla Bee w/o SK. CHAND and anr. (supra) referred to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and in the context of the second limb of Section 16(2) of the said Act, specifically held as follows:

"14. Thus, the requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the said Act, is also interlinked with second part of sub-section (2) of Section 16. Hence, the entire provision of section 16(1)(g) and 16(2) with the second part has to be read as a whole and is required to be harmoniously construed to give effect to every provision made therein. The object of introducing the provision of second part of sub-section (2) of Section 16, is to balance the requirement under Section 16(1)

PAGE 11 OF 17

-WP3134.2022.doc (16) The said position was followed in the case of Ramesh s/o Danchand Waswani (supra) and the matter was remanded to the appellate Court to enquire as to whether a decree of partial eviction could be passed under second limb of Section 16(2) of the said Act. In the case of Vasant Mahadeo Gujar (surpa), this Court relied upon the said position laid down in the case Bismilla Bee w/o SK. CHAND and anr. (supra).