Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that amongst his three sons, the elder son was assisting him in business and two PAGE 2 OF 17

-WP3134.2022.doc other sons having turned major were interested in starting their own business and hence, the tenanted premises were required to start business, being suited for the said need. Similarly, the respondent No.2 pleaded that his elder son was assisting him in business while the younger son, having turned major, was interested in starting his own business and that the tenanted premises were best suited for the said purpose. On the basis of the said bonafide need projected on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, they sought eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.

-WP3134.2022.doc 2, within thirty days and also directed a separate enquiry to be held for future mesne profits as per Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In the process of holding in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Small Causes Court gave positive findings in their favour on the question of bonafide need, as also comparative hardship. It was specifically held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had succeeded in making out a case under Section 16(1)(g) of the aforesaid Act pertaining to bonafide need.

(11) Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the opinion that a limited issue arises for consideration in the present case. As noted above, notice was also issued only on the limited issue pertaining to Section 16(2) of the aforesaid Act. Insofar as the question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 having made out the case under Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act, pertaining to bonafide need, this Court considered the concurrent judgments and orders of the two Courts below, in the light of the oral and documentary evidence on record. This Court is satisfied that in the light of such evidence, particularly admissions given by the petitioners that the specific bonafide need projected on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was fully justified by the evidence placed on record. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the said finding.

-WP3134.2022.doc would suffer in case of their eviction. There was no discussion or analysis of the evidence on record on the second limb of Section 16(2) of the said Act, pertaining to partial eviction of the petitioners. (21) A perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court would show that while a point was indeed framed on the question of greater hardship that either of the parties would suffer, in the reasons recorded in the said judgment, the entire discussion pertaining to the oral and documentary evidence on record was only with regard to the question of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act. While the said findings cannot be found fault with, the impugned judgment and order of the District Court shows that after having rendered findings in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the question of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act, there was no discussion at all on the question of comparative hardship or as to which of the contesting parties would suffer greater hardship in the context of the eviction decree. The discussion in the judgment of the District Court was entirely on the aspect of bonafide need, with no discussion on comparative hardship and the appeal stood dismissed, thereby confirming the decree of eviction.