LexSMT. RAMKUBAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. versus HAZARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...... SMT. RAMKUBAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. A v. HAZARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK AND ORS. AUGUST 13, 1999 [V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] B Rent Control & Eviction: Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947- Sections 13(l)(g), 13(l)(e) and 17-Bonafide requirement-Premises required C by landlady for her unemployed son for setting-up Kirana business-Landlady herself and another son carrying-on same business separatelJ;-Meanwhile the said son-started working as Contractor-Whether bonafide requirement affected-HELD, No,. since the son can not be expected to remain unemployed till final disposal of case, the taking up of contract work meanwhile will not D militate against his carrying on the family business. The landlady-Appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds that there had been default in payment of rent, the premises were sub-let, and bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The Trial Court granted a decree for eviction holding that all the grounds E were established by the landlady. The Appellate Court found that there was no default in payment of rent; there was no subletting and there was no case of personal requirement. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Appellate Court. Hence, this Appeal by the landlady. It was contended for the landlady that merely on the ground that her F other son is carrying on Kirana business in one shop and she is a partner in that firm, the bona fide requirement of the premises for her son was wrongly negatived by both the Appellate Court as well as the High Court and that at the time of filing of the petition, the son was unemployed, but later on he started working as a Contractor. Allowing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The Appellants have established bona fide requirement to recover the possession of the suit premises from the Respondents. [466-DJ G 2.1 Though the son of the landlady was unemployed on the date of filing H . 461 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. l S.C.R. A of the suit, he could not be expected to idle away the time by r.emaining unemployed till the case got finally decided. Therefore, taking up contract work, in the meanwhile, will not militate against his carrying on the business of Kirana, which was his family business, which was carried on by his father and was later carried on by his brother independently. (465-E) B 2.2. The fact that the landlady during her lifetime was a partner in the firm carrying on Kirana business does not disentitle her son to establish his own business. [465-F) 2.3. None.of the reasons given leads to the inference that son did not intend to start family Kirana business. So, relief cannot be denied to the C landlady to recover the suit premises for personal requirement of her son to establish Kirana business independently. [465-G) 3. The finding of the Appellate Court that, the landlady will suffer greater hardship than the tenants if decree is not passed in her favour, has D become final and thus the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is also satisfied. [466-8] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 329of1998. E From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.97 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 362 of 1984. F V.N. Ganpule, Ms. S.V. Sonawane and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants. V.A. Mohta, A.S. Bhasme and Manoj Kumar Mishra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.No.362of1984 dated March 27, 1997. The appellants are G the legal representatives of deceased landlady, Smt. Ramkubai, and the respondents are original defendant No. I, Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and the legal representatives of the second defendant Lale hand Dhokalchand Chandak (hereinafter they are referred to as 'landlady' and 'tenants'). The landlady filed civil suit, bearing Civil Suit No.12 of 1975 in ttie H Court of Civil Judge J.D. lgatpuri, against respondent No. I herein and the said RAMKUBAI v. H.D. CHANDAK [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J .) 463 Lalchand Dhokalchand Chandak who died during the pendency of the A proceedings, respondent Nos. '2A' to '2F' are his legal representatives, for recovery of possession of house bearing Municipal No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.