Bona-fide Requirement under Section 13(1)(i) – Bombay Rent Act – Landlord Entitled to Possession of Open Land for Construction – Writ Petition Allowed

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court allowed W.P. 5205/2002 partly, setting aside the common judgment and decree dated 06.02.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Baramati, in Civil Appeal No. 88/1997 and Civil Revision Application No.1/1998. The Court observed that the Petitioner, Milind Rajkumar Wagholikar, had sufficiently pleaded and proved bona-fide requirement under Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for possession of an open plot in Baramati to construct an apartment scheme. Concurrent findings of lower courts on default and illegal sub-letting were upheld, while the appellate court’s rejection of bona-fide requirement was held perverse. Petitioner directed to be given vacant possession within six weeks.

Background:

Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 152/1994 seeking recovery of possession and arrears of rent against Respondents for property bearing CTS No. 506/34 (new CTS 866) admeasuring about 7,500 sq. ft. at Ward No. 4, Baramati, under the Bombay Rent Act. Grounds included illegal sub-letting, default, and bona-fide requirement for personal construction. Trial Court dismissed the suit but fixed standard rent at Rs. 100/- per month. Civil Appeal and Revision filed against these orders were dismissed by the Appellate Court.

Submissions:

1. Petitioner: Argued Respondent No.1 illegally sublet property and constructed permanent structure on open land. Demonstrated financial capacity and sanctioned building plans for apartment construction. Bona-fide requirement under Section 13(1)(i) of Bombay Rent Act established.
2. Respondents: Argued property initially leased for business purposes without specific purpose; claimed Petitioner has sufficient other plots; hardship would be caused if eviction allowed; denied permanent construction; argued Section 13(1)(i) inapplicable.

Legal Principles:

1. Bona-fide requirement under Section 13(1)(i) primarily rests on landlord’s discretion; court cannot substitute judgment.
2. Pleading and evidence of intention to construct on open land, along with municipal sanction and financial capacity, is sufficient to establish bona-fide requirement.
3. Concurrent findings of lower courts on sub-letting and arrears, if not perverse, are binding.
4. Distinction between Sections 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(i) is crucial for eviction matters.

Decision:

Writ petition allowed partly:

1. Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.02.2002 quashed only with respect to Section 13(1)(i) claim.
2. Civil Appeal No. 88/1997 allowed to the extent of bona-fide requirement under Section 13(1)(i).
3. Respondents directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to Petitioner within six weeks.
4. No order as to costs.

Coram:

Hon’ble M.M. Sathaye, J.