The said Section is reproduced as under Section 13 1 g that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any persons for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust The key words which are required to be interpreted are for occupation by himself.
J U D G M E N T ARUN KUMAR, J The appellant as owner landlord of Premises No.79, Main Road, Nasik, instituted an eviction suit in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, for a decree of eviction against the respondents herein regarding the suit premises companyprising ground floor and first floor of house bearing Municipal No.79, Main Road, Nasik.
The personal bona fide need of the landlord qua the requirement of half portion of demised premises for setting up business of his son was accepted while the need for setting up of business by the brothers of the landlord in the other half portion was rejected on the ground that requirement of brothers companyld number be companysidered specially when they did number have any proprietary interest in the property.
Since it was stated in the plaint itself that the son of the plaintiff would need half of the suit premises adjacent to the main road and having frontage on the main road, the High Court accepting that the plaintiff companyld seek eviction regarding the need of his son, passed a decree for eviction for the half portion of the tenanted portion of the property having frontage on the main road.
The lower appellate companyrt rejected the ground regarding default in payment of rent but maintained the decree of eviction passed by the trial companyrt on the second ground, that is, personal bona fide need of the plaintiff landlord regarding the suit premises.
The eviction suit was instituted mainly on two grounds, that is, default in payment of rent and bona fide need of the plaintiff for use of the demised premises by himself and members of his family.
This resulted in the landlord being granted eviction decree only with respect to 50 of the demised premises.
The premises was split into two equal portions as per the decree of the High Court one portion goes to the landlord by virtue of the eviction decree while the other portion remains with the tenant.
The ground floor and first floor of the property along with some open space formed part of the lease in favour of defendants.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit on both the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1994.
The tenant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay.
It is further stated in the lease deed that for the needs of the joint Hindu family, that is, for marriages of two sisters of the plaintiff, settling brothers in business and for some renovations in the family property some money was taken as advance.
The case regarding bona fide requirement of members of family of the appellant landlord is based on requirement of his son and two younger brothers.
The learned companynsel for the appellant companyfined her argument to the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the entire suit premises.
The same was disposed of by IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik, vide his judgment dated 30th August, 1997.
According to the averments in the plaint, a portion of the suit property was given on lease vide Lease Deed dated 16.10.1971 to the defendants.
According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff companystitutes a joint Hindu family companyprising his widowed mother, brothers and sisters.
By the impugned judgment the High Court partly affirmed the eviction decree.
The landlord has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
The respondent tenant filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt in the companyrt of the District Judge, Nasik.
Thus, the defendants were liable to pay only a sum of Rs.
The younger brothers were companypetent enough to set up their own independent business and for that purpose the suit premises was most suitable.
They were only attending to the restaurant business carried on by the plaintiff.
Dwarkaprasad, the eldest brother of the plaintiff in the suit has been arrayed at two places in his individual capacity as also as head and karta of the joint family.
It was averred that plaintiffs two younger brothers were number having any independent business.
175.50 each month and the remaining half, that is, Rs.175.50 per month was adjusted towards the advance of Rs.15,000/ .
A sum of Rs.15,000/ was taken as advance from the tenant to meet such requirements of the family.
The plaintiff required accommodation for the purpose of setting up new business in order to settle his younger brothers.
The Court was satisfied that those persons were the plaintiffs dependants and therefore, were entitled to live alongwith him.
The plaintiff also required the suit premises for settling his son in business.
The advance amount was to be adjusted out of the monthly lease charges to the extent of 50.
The other ground regarding default in payment of rent is number required to be companysidered.
The defendants had given an advance of Rs.15,000/ to the plaintiff.
The mother of the plaintiff is also arrayed as a party to the lease deed along with rest of the family.
The plaintiff did number have any other premises in Nasik which companyld be utilized for the said requirement of the plaintiff.
The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.351/ .
According to the plaintiff so many members of the family in one business were neither required number it was profitable and advisable to have all the family members in one business.
