Skip to content


Kundanmal Dowlatram Vs. Lakhmichand Chhogmal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 273 of 1920
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Bom73; (1921)23BOMLR559
AppellantKundanmal Dowlatram
RespondentLakhmichand Chhogmal
Excerpt:
bombay rent act (ii of 1918), see. 9-landlord and tenant-demised premises required by landlord for his own use-agreement by tenant to give up a part of demised premises.;where a landlord sues to eject his tenant under the provisions of the bombay bent act 1918 and establishes that he requires only a portion of the premises for his own use, which portion is capable of being severed and the tenant is willing to give up, it is competent to the court to order the tenant to give up such a portion only. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale,..........of the compromise were not carried out with the result that the plaintiff had to file a fresh suit. the judge found that the plaintiff reasonably required for his own use at least two rooms. the premises occupied by the defendant contained live rooms. aw the learned judge thought it was not open to him to sever the tenancy, lie gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the whole of the premises. this is rather an important question, therefore we granted a rule so that it could be decided whether the judge was right in the view he took. we think there was no valid objection, and no authority has been cited in favour of it, to the tenancy being severed, provided the tenant was willing to occupy the remainder of the premises, after giving up what it had been decided the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff filed an ejectment suit in the Small Causes Court against the defendant in April 1920. Before the decree was passed a compromise was arrived at that the defendant was to place a big room out of the premises in his occupation at the disposal of the plaintiff in order to accomodate the plaintiff's mother. The terms of the compromise were not carried out with the result that the plaintiff had to file a fresh suit. The Judge found that the plaintiff reasonably required for his own use at least two rooms. The premises occupied by the defendant contained live rooms. Aw the learned Judge thought it was not open to him to sever the tenancy, lie gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the whole of the premises. This is rather an important question, therefore we granted a rule so that it could be decided whether the Judge was right in the view he took. We think there was no valid objection, and no authority has been cited in favour of it, to the tenancy being severed, provided the tenant was willing to occupy the remainder of the premises, after giving up what it had been decided the plaintiff reasonably required for his own use, so that the rule must be made absolute, the decree set aside, and the case remanded to the Small Causes Court for the learned Judge to resume the hearing of the case from the point where he left off. As the Judge has found that the plaintiff reasonably required two rooms for his own use, it is left for him now to decide which two rooms should now be given up by the defendant. The Judge will have to apportion the rent between the parties. Costs of the application will be costs in the suit.

Shah, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //