Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Citing Genuine Need Of Owners Living With 11 Family Members, Says Tenant Can't Ask Landlord To 'Adjust'

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai upheld an eviction decree observing that the landlords showed a “reasonable and bonafide requirement” of the premises as they along with 11 family members were currently occupying premises only 400 sq ft in area.

“The proven fact is that the need of the Plaintiffs (owners) for additional accommodation is genuine, honest and conceived in good faith and thus reasonable and bonafide. In such circumstances, challenge to the finding rendered by the courts below on the issue of bonafide and reasonable need of the premises cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the tenant cannot dictate terms to him as to how he can and how he should adjust in the available premises”.

The dispute revolved around 319 sq. ft. premises located in South Mumbai. On May 17, 2004, the owners and original plaintiffs Chandrakant, Ketan, and Sanjiv Shah issued a notice terminating the tenancy, instructing tenant Hasmukh Shah to vacate. The present applicant Ajay Shah responded to the notice, claiming possession for residential cum commercial purposes.

The owners filed an eviction suit, asserting that Hasmukh Shah sublet the premises to Ajay Shah without written consent. Additionally, they argued that they, along with 11 family members, occupied about 400 sq. ft. and faced space insufficiency, leading to a plea of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises.

Ajay Shah denied subletting, stating that the premises were originally occupied by his father and uncle since 1954 for residence-cum-office use. He, an Income-tax practitioner, claimed usage for residence-cum-office purposes. He argued that the owners had ample space. He also expressed hardship concerns over potential career ruin due to eviction.

The Small Causes Court recognized the lack of independent premises for certain family members of the owners and the need for privacy for grown-up children. Decreeing solely on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, the court favoured the owners.

The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court upheld the findings that the current premises were insufficient for the owners. It concluded that Ajay Shah could find an alternate premises easily, dismissing the appeal and confirming the eviction decree on February 18, 2020.

Aggrieved by the concurrent decisions, Ajay Shah challenged them through the present Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC.

Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 allows eviction of a tenant based on the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord. Section 16(2) sets a condition that no eviction decree shall be passed if the court finds that greater hardship would be caused to either the landlord or the tenant by passing the decree.

Section 16(1)(g) empowers the landlord to reclaim possession for bonafide use, while section 16(2) introduces a bar against eviction based on the comparative hardship, the court noted. The court observed that the burden of proving the premises are reasonably and bonafidely required lies with the landlord, and the tenant must establish greater hardship to resist eviction.

Sanjiv Shah testified regarding the occupation of three rooms by the owners and their family members. The total area does not exceed 400 sq.ft., he said, and highlighted a lack of independent accommodation for his brother and his wife.

The court opined that the owners and 11 family members occupying around 400 sq. ft. demonstrated a genuine need for additional accommodation. When the area occupied by them was accurately mentioned in the pleadings, the mere fact that they did not specify the exact number of rooms or the area of the individual room would not amount to suppression of material facts, the court held.

Evidence from Hasmukh Shah revealed that he left the premises in 1961-62 and has resided elsewhere since then. His residence in an ownership flat contradicts the claim of using the suit premises for residential-cum-office purposes, the court opined. Further, Ajay Shah has an ownership flat and a tenanted room in Ghatkopar, with no indication of unavailability of office premises nearby, the court observed.

The court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, asserting the owner' right to seek eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement.

In light of the court's decision, Ajay Shah was granted three months to vacate the premises, to enable him to find alternative accommodation.

Case no. – Civil Revision Application No. 119 of 2021

Case Title – Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah v. Chandrakant Babulal Shah and Ors.