though, she was number suited by the trial companyrt which is the Small Causes Court, Bombay , she went in appeal to the appealable bench of the Court of Small causes, where she got a decree for eviction on the ground mentioned above.
200/ per month.
So, she moved the Court in 1977 for a decree of eviction of her tenant from her flat at Bandra.
This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the landlady impugning the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Of companyrse, she cast the net very wide companyering a variety of grounds to have a decree for eviction, but what ultimately survived among them was the ground envisaged in Section 13 1 g of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for short the Act , i.e., bona fide and reasonable requirement of the tenanted premises for her own occupation.
Still she was number suited by the trial companyrt on the premise that her pleadings on that score were scanty.
It is to be pointed out, right number itself, that need of the landlady for additional accommodation in view of large family was recognised by the trial companyrt.
Hence the appeal companyrt found numberhurdle in granting the decree of eviction.
Appeal Court after companycurring with the finding which was favourable to the landlady did number take the inadequacy in the pleadings as capable of fatally affecting her cause.
As years passed by, she found it difficult to accommodate her large family in the small residential apartment where she is presently living.
A landlady had rented out her flat situate at Bandra West in Bombay number Mumbai to a tenant in 1969 for a rent of Rs.
Thomas,J. Leave granted.
