Landlord Entitled To Seek Eviction Once Tenant Acquires Alternate Premises: Bombay HC
|The Bombay High Court ruled that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant once the tenant acquires alternate premises within the meaning of Section 15(2)(v) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.
The court noted that exact comparative assessment is not the requirement and the alternate premises acquired need not be the same as the tenanted premises.
The High Court also clarified that the fact that the landlord has transferred the same after initiations of the proceedings under the Tenancy Act and that the tenant is not holding the plots currently is of no consequence, since the tenant become liable for eviction on acquisition of alternate premises.
The High Court held so while considering an application by the landlord challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge in setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun R. Pednekar observed that “The need of the landlord should be considered to be bona fide unless the same is an excuse to merely evict the tenant and subsequent events are not required to be taken into consideration”.
Further, “In any event, the subsequent event as to the demise of the mother and how the “Vora Bungalow” property is inherited is not brought on record. The applicant has five sisters and it is not brought on record whether the ‘Vora Bungalow” is willed to any of the siblings or inherited by all. Thus, even otherwise it cannot be said that the need of the landlord is completely eclipsed”, added the Bench.
Advocate S. P. Shah appeared for the Applicant, whereas Advocate R. P. Adgaonkar appeared for the Respondents.
The factual background of the case were that the suit premises situated in Latur has two parts. The said premises are in some parts double storeyed, whereas in some part there are residential amenities and as well as business premises. The applicant is owner and landlord of the entire Eastern portion. The opponents are a partnership concern and a separate entity. The entire Eastern portion premises were leased before 1975 to first respondent for running their business, as traders in agricultural commodities. The residential portion was also occupied by the said firm. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) in Latur has subsequently developed a market yard about 600 meters away from the suit premises and the first opponent was allotted a plot in the market yard for carrying on its business. Later, the landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant before the Rent Controller as contemplated under Section 15 (2)(v) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, contending that the tenant, without permission of the landlord in writing, inducted two subtenant in the tenanted premises.
The Rent Controller concluded that the landlord has proved that he needs the tenanted premises, reasonably and bona fide, for residence and business, and that the tenanted premises requires reconstruction and the tenant has secured the alternate premises for business. On appeal, the Principal District Judge held that in view of the subsequent events that the father and mother of the landlord have expired, the need of the tenanted premises by the landlord for his residence, is completely eclipsed by the subsequent events, and that the landlord has totally failed to prove that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for residential, and as such, dismissed the case of the landlord.
After considering the submission, the Bench found that that the tenant was allotted a plot by the APMC, Latur in the market yard, which is around 600 meters away from the existing office in 1980-1981, and the said plot was transferred to a third person in 1989 by the tenant.
The Bench further found that the tenants are in business of trading of agricultural products and APMC plot was also used for purchase of agricultural products.
Emphasizing that it is not for the tenant or the Courts to direct the landlords/children to stay with their parents, and it is also not for the Court to direct that the children should stay in the house of their father when they have an available tenanted premises, the Bench clarified that the need of the landlord to establish an independent house apart from their parents cannot be said to be lacking of bona fides.
The Bench also pointed that while appreciating the evidence on bona fide need of the landlord and acquiring alternate premises by the tenant the appellate Court erred in not applying the settled principles of law in considering the bona fide need of the landlord and the provisions of law on the aspect of securing alternate accommodation and has thus rendered a perverse finding of bona fide need.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and passed a direction of eviction against the tenant/respondent on the ground of bona fide need and securing alternate accommodation by tenant.
Cause Title: Hemantkumar Prabhudasji Vora v. Khimji Bhanji & Company and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: BHC-AUG: 23503]
Click here to read/ download the Judgment