The Bombay High court passed a judgement on Wednesday, the 27th of July, in the year 2022 in which it quashed the order of a lower court and allowed the petition to eject the defendants from the premises of the plaintiff. This was seen in the case of Sanjay s/o Avinashchander Kapoor & Anr. vs. M/s. Gandhi Electricals & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4815 Of 2013) and the case was presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice Amit B. Borkar.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In this writ petition, A suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking ejectment of the defendants/respondents from the suit premises, used for business, on the ground available under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been dismissed by the Courts and this has been challenged by the petitioners.
The petitioners filed the suit for possession of 200 sq.ft. on the ground floor of a building consisting of a mezzanine floor and first floor purchased by the petitioners. The requirement pleaded by the petitioner in the plaint is about 500 to 600 sq.ft. for starting a transport business and it is requested that there are 8 to 10 employees of the petitioners and area of 500 to 600 sq.ft. is required for their staff, visitors, who visit taking delivery of their goods or for booking their consignments. The petitioners plead that though the petitioners have possession of a godown and premises on the first floor, the suit premises face the main road and is on the ground floor; therefore, it is suitable for their business of transport. The petitioners are running their business in the rented premises, and the landlord of the said premises has initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners.
The respondents filed a written statement stating that the petitioners have in their possession vacant area on the first floor of the building, measuring about 1800 to 2100 sq.ft., which can be used for establishing a transport office. Therefore, the shop of respondents has goodwill, and the respondents would suffer greater hardship if the decree is passed against the respondents. The respondents also raised objections about noncompliance with Order VII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that the petitioners have started using the mezzanine floor and open to sky portion of the open plot adjoining to the suit premises for transport business.
The conclusion drawn by the below Courts disbelieving the bona fide need of landlord on the ground that the petitioners have sufficient vacant premises available in the suit building in the form of godown on the eastern side, mezzanine floor, and first floor is perverse. Merely due to the fact the petitioners had started business on the mezzanine floor during the pendency of proceedings that would not overlook the bona fide need of the landlord to start the business on the ground floor facing the main road, and the Court cannot forget that the petitioners on the date of filing of the suit were doing business in rented premises. The offer of petitioners to shift their business to the first floor has been rejected by the respondents. In that view of the matter, the landlord is entitled to get possession of 200 sq.ft. of suit premises.
Therefore, the court quashes and sets aside the judgment and decree passed in Reg Civil Appeal by the learned Ad Hoc District Judge, of Nagpur.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY TANAV ZACHARIAH.