Bombay High Court Upholds Partial Eviction to Address Bona Fide Need: Balances Landlord’s Right and Tenant’s Hardship in Dispute Over Dairy Farming Premises Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act

The Bombay High Court partially allowed the revision application, modifying the eviction decree. The court directed the defendants to hand over possession of half the suit premises to Respondent No.1(b), Brijbhushan Chandrabali Shukla, while permitting the tenant(s) to retain the other half. This decision was made to balance the interests of both parties, given the unique circumstances and partial satisfaction of the bona fide need asserted by the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case:

1. Background of the Dispute:
   • The suit premises were being used for dairy farming and milk trading by the defendants, who were tenants of the plaintiff.
   • The plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, citing bona fide need and breach of tenancy terms.
2. Proceedings in Lower Courts:
   • The trial court decreed eviction based on both bona fide need and breach of tenancy terms.
   • The appellate court upheld only the ground of bona fide need, dismissing the other grounds.
3. Current Revision Application:
   • The defendants challenged the findings of bona fide need, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was inconsistent and unjustified given subsequent events, including partial settlement with one of the plaintiff’s sons.

Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff’s bona fide need for the suit premises was genuine and sustainable throughout the litigation.
2. Whether the settlement with one of the plaintiff’s sons reduced the extent of bona fide need.
3. Whether partial eviction was a viable solution to balance hardships between the parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defendants):

1. Inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s Statements:
   • The plaintiff’s advanced age and differing statements raised doubts about the bona fide need.
2. Impact of Settlement:
   • The plaintiff’s elder son, Daroga, settled with the defendants, reducing the overall need for the premises.
3. Redundancy Due to Prior Decree:
   • The execution of a previous decree for similar premises negated the need for additional space.

Respondent’s Arguments (Plaintiff):

1. Bona Fide Need:
   • The plaintiff and his younger son, Brijbhushan, required the premises for dairy farming and milk trading, with no viable alternative available.
2. Minor Inconsistencies:
   • The discrepancies in statements were minor and should not overshadow the legitimate need for the premises.
3. Prolonged Litigation Impact:
   • The need persisted throughout the lengthy litigation process, warranting relief.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:
   • The provision requires courts to weigh the relative hardships between the landlord and the tenant in eviction cases.
   • It allows partial eviction to address bona fide need while minimizing hardship to the tenant.
2. Bona Fide Requirement:
   • The bona fide need must be genuine, consistent, and supported by evidence throughout the litigation process.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Natwarlal Shamji Gada v. Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh:
   • Reaffirmed that bona fide need must be continuous during litigation.
2. Prem Chand v. Santosh Kumar:
   • Highlighted the importance of balancing hardships through partial eviction when feasible.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Partial Satisfaction of Bona Fide Need:
   • The plaintiff’s need, particularly that of his younger son, Brijbhushan, was established, but the settlement with the elder son reduced the overall requirement.
2. Balancing Hardships:
   • Partial eviction was deemed appropriate to address the legitimate needs of the plaintiff while minimizing disruption to the tenants’ livelihoods.
3. Legitimacy of Procedural Continuity:
   • The plaintiff’s minor inconsistencies were not significant enough to undermine the core assertion of bona fide need.

Conclusion:

The High Court modified the eviction decree, directing the defendants to vacate half of the premises for Respondent No.1(b) by February 28, 2025. The court acknowledged the partial fulfillment of the plaintiff’s bona fide need and allowed the defendants to retain possession of the remaining portion of the premises. The revision application was partially allowed, balancing the interests of both parties.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Delay Condonation in Filing Form 9A, Cites Procedural Delay Due to Shift to Electronic Filing Under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act