GULABBAI versus NALIN NARSI VOHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 15-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GULABBAI 
v. 
NALIN NARSI VOHRA AND ORS. 
JULY 15, 1991 
[B.C. RAY AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. 
1947-Section 12(2) read with Section 12(3)(a) and Section 13( l)(a)-
Eviction of tenants on ground of bona fide need-Additional evidence 
brought on record subsequent to filing of Suit to determine the question 
of bona fide need-Held admissible "reasonable requirement"-
,.. Element of need-Necessity for. 
The appellant-plaintiff institnted a Regular Civil Suit in the court 
of Joint Civil Judge, J .D., Ahmednagar for vacant possession of the suit 
property and also for arrears of rent. It was pleaded by the appellant 
A 
B 
c 
that the defendants were in possession of the suit shop on the monthly 
D 
rent and the tenancy commenced from the first day of every month and 
ended on the last day of the said month according to English calender. 
The plaintiff based his suit primarily on two grounds viz., that the 
• defendants had committed default in the payment of statutory rent and 
werP thus defaulters and secondly the appellant required the premises 
for bona fide need for setting up an office for her hnsband, who is tax 
E 
consultant. It was asserted by the plaintiff that the defendants had 
acquired alternative business places both in the vicinity of the suit pre-
mises, being partners of the firms named in the plaint and also else-
where and they no longer required the premises. It was also added that 
the suit premises remained mostly locked and no business was carried 
'on there; defendants 1 to 3 having shifted from Ahmednagar to Pone 
F 
were doing business there. The defendants denied the allegations con-
tained in the plaint, stating that the suit property was in their possession 
since last 20 years at the annual rent of Rs.255.36 ps; that on receipt of 
the notice they had sent the rent amounting to Rs.517-92 ps. by Money 
Order which the appellant refused being not correctly calculated; then 
again the defendants sent Rs.960 by Demand Draft which was also 
G 
refused by the appellant as miscalculated. Thereafter the defendants 
_,sent Rs.658.55 ps. by Money Order which was accepted by the appellant. 
According to the tenants they are always willing to pay the rent and in 
fact fue appellant's husband has been accepting the rent without issuing 
any receipt therefor. According to the defendants, the requirement of 
the plaintiff was neither bona fide nor reasonable; her husband, an 
H 
941 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
A Income-Tax and Sales/Tax Practitioner was working with Mr. Gandhi 
as one of his partners and also having his own office. Further the 
plaintiff was in possession of an area lSft. x 2Sft. on the ground floor 
facing towards west, adjacent to the suit premises and also complete 
first floor 4Sft. x 15ft. 
B 
The Tiial Court held that the defendants failed to prove that the suit 
premises were leased to them at annual rent and as such they were held 
to be defaulters as the deposits of rent were not made within the mean-
ing of Si!ctlon 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. The Trial Court 
further found that as the plaintiff has no other accommodation at 
Ahmednagar except the suit premises and the partnership of the plaintiff's 
' 
C husband with S.B. Gandhi had been dissolved, the plaintiff reasonably 
required the suit premises for the purpose of opening office of her 
husband as Tax Consultant. Accordingly the Trial Court decreed the 
suit and directed the defendants-ro hand over the vacant possession of 
the suit premises within one month of the date of the order. Being 
aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal before the Additional District 
D Judge, Ahmednagar. The Additional District Judge, held that the trial 
court was right in holding that the defendant No. 1 was paying the rent 
monthly and he was a monthly tenant but there were no arrears for the 
statutory period in order to hold that the defendants were defaulters for 
which their tenancy was liable to be determined. On the question of 
bona fide requirement of the appellant, the Additional District Judge 
E also considered the application for additional evidence which disclosed 
that the plaintiff's husband had purchased a plot and constructed a big 
bungalow covering about 2000 sq. ft. and held that it was not known 
whether the Municipality bad given permission for habitation and 
furthermore the requirement of the plaintiff was especially for conduct-
i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.