MRS. MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGAR versus M/S. TRADERS AND AGENCIES AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 11-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MRS. MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGAR 
v. 
MIS. TRADERS AND AGENCIES AND ANR. 
JULY 11, 1996 
[S. C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Sec. 
13(I)(g) : 
C 
Eviction-Bona fide requirement-Landlady not having any premises 
other than suit premises in Cil)>-Landlady's husband had a flat on rent but 
had parted with its possession to his brothe1~T11is fact not disclosed in 
application for eviction-Held, this does not amount to suppression of fact-If 
she proves that requirenients is reasonable, eviction decree cannot be 
denied-Suitable altemative accommodation-Husband of the landlady oc-
D cupying a flat as licensee, given by his employe1~Held, cannot be considered 
as suitable aitemative accommodation-Landlord is best judge of his residen-
tial requirement-If landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property 
when the other property occupied by him as a tenant on any other basis is 
either insecure or inconvenient-Cou1t cannot dictate to continue to occupy 
E such premises. 
F 
111e appellant is the owner of the suit premises. By an agreement, 
the pren1ises was given to the rt!spondent no. 1, a firm, on leave and licence 
basis for the purpose of its use and occupation by respondent no. 2 who 
was a partner of that firm. 
The appellant filed a Suit for eviction of the respondents on the 
ground of reasonable and bona fide needs and stated that she and her 
husband did not have any other residential premises of their own in 
Bombay. A flat was temporary made available to them by the company/firm 
G of her husband, E, but purely on a caretaker basis and was required to 
vacate at any n1oment. During the cross·examination the appellant stated 
that E was having a two bedroom tenanted flat, in which they were staying 
with his younger brother. But E had vacated the flat after his brother's 
marriage, many years back and shifted in his company's that which was 
available purely on temporary and caretaker basis. His brother continued 
H to stay in the same tenanted flat. 
466 
MEENALEKNATI!KSHIRSAGAR v. TRADERSANDAGENCJES 
467 
Respondents contended that the fact having a tenanted Ila! was 
neither disclosed in the plaint nor in the examination- in-chief and such 
omission amounted to suppression of material fact and on that ground the 
appellant's claim should be rejected. This contention was rejected by the 
trial court on the observation that the appellant herself did not have any 
personal interest in the tenanted Ila! and omission of such fact did not 
disclose any nia/afide intention on her part and as such the trial court 
passed a decree on merit against the respondents for eviction. 
Jn appeal, the appellate court held that omission of fact that E was 
having a tenanted llat amounts to suppression of material fact. On con· 
sidering the stand taken by E, in the proceedings of eviction, tiled by the 
landlady of the tenanted llat, the appellate court held that E alone was the 
tenant of the llat and the occupation of the llat by his brother was totally 
on his mercy. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said llat was not available 
to E. As regards the llat allotted to E by his firm, no evidence was produced 
to show that E was required to vacate the said llat. As such the Appellate 
Court held that both the llats were available to them and dismissed the suit. 
The appellant preferred a writ petition against the judgment but the 
High Court also agreed with the finding and reason given by the App.ellate 
Court and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
material fact. Hence, this appeal. 
E 
The appellant contended that while testing reasonable requirement 
of the landlord, the reality of the situation was required to be considered 
not the possibility of the landlord being able to continue to reside in the 
rented premises. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The fact that the landlady is the owner of the suit premises 
and that she does not down any other premises in the city of Bombay was 
F 
not in dispute. She does not possess even as a tenant, any premises in G 
Bombay. As regards to E's tenanted llat, if she believed that the flat was 
not available for occupation as the same was vacated by E many years back 
and was occupied by E's brother and his family and it was not possible or 
convenient for her and her family to go and stay there, it was not absolutely 
necessary for her to refer to those facts i

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