Dr. Vinayak Trimbak Wale vs Tarachand Hiralal Shet Marwadi on 8 March, 1960
In Shantaram Keshav v. Prabhakar Balwant . Mr. Justice Bavdekar held that the word "decree" in Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act means the decree for eviction which is passed by the trial Court and, therefore, the time at which the availability of the accommodation either to the landlord or tenant, which has to be taken into consideration under Section 13(2) of the Act, is the time when the trial Court is about to pass the decree for eviction. This principle must equally apply under Section 13(I)(g), of the Bombay Rent Act. In order that a landlord should become entitled to recover possession of any premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g), the Court has to be satisfied that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by him for occupation by himself. When the landlord gives notice seeking to terminate the tenancy of the tenant on that ground and flies a suit for possession, it is not only essential for him to show that at the date when he gave notice he reasonably and bona fide required the premises for his own occupation, but that his need continued even pending the hearing of the suit. The trial Court's satisfaction on this point must relate to the period of the hearing of the suit itself and the passing of the decree, and cannot be confined to the date of the notice.