Shri Ashokkumar Gurulingappa vs Sidramappa Ganpatrao Mulge on 13 February, 2009
The argument is that the background in which the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:56 :::
4
present suit has been filed clearly demonstrates that
the requirement of the Plaintiff/landlord was neither
bonafide nor reasonable. It was argued that the
landlord ought to have waited for atleast three years
from the date of purchase before instituting suit for
possession of the suit premises on the ground of
bonafide and reasonable requirement. This argument
is devoid of merit. There is no express provision in
the Rent Act which precludes the landlord from
instituting suit for possession on the ground of
bonafide
purchases
and
reasonable requirement soon
the suit property. That by itself
after
cannot
he
be the basis to non-suit the landlord. This legal
position is no more res integra. We can usefully
refer to the decision of our High Court in the case
of Indubai Govind Lad & Ors. Vs. Smt.Anjelinabai
Jitendra Kumar Bafna reported in 2004 Bom.C.R.
596(para 5 thereof), which has examined the effect of
amendment of Bombay Act 61 of 1953 to answer the
point in issue. The Court is obliged to consider the
question as to whether the requirement is bonafide
and reasonable, uninfluenced by that fact. Indeed,
the Petitioners may be justified in contending that
the landlord had full knowledge of the fact that the
suit premises were already occupied by the tenant
when the property was purchased by him. It may
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:56 :::
5
appear as if the landlord purchased the property to
speculate. However, in the present case, two Courts
below have analysed the evidence of the Plaintiff and
have accepted the plea of the Plaintiff that it was
not possible for him to get any other property in the
locality except the house property (in which the suit
premises were situated), in vacant condition or free
for occupation. It is in this background, the Court
below tested the argument of bonafide and reasonable
requirement of the Plaintiffs and have found that
merely
property
because
inspite
ig the
of
landlord
full
purchased
knowledge that
the
it
suit
was
already occupied by the tenant does not militate
against the landlord in the fact situation of the
present case. That is a finding of fact reached by
the two Courts below, which needs no interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction being a possible view
and consistent with the evidence on record.