- Case
- SAKHARAM D. PATWARDHAN @ HAIRS PRADEEP PATWARDHAN v. SHRI SHANKAR 3K (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act.
Facts: Dr. Sakharam Dinkar Patwardhan, through his heirs, filed a writ petition challenging the legality and validity of a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur, in a civil appeal. The civil appeal partly allowed a decree of partial eviction regarding Block No. 14 out of suit premises Block Nos. 14, 15, and 16. The plaintiff No. 3 claimed bonafide need for the premises, particularly for his son, who is an advocate. The defendant (original tenant) was in possession of all three blocks, each consisting of three rooms.
Procedural Posture: The case reached the High Court of Bombay via a writ petition (WP No. 2956 of 1996) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the appellate court which had partly allowed the eviction suit. The original suit had been dismissed by the trial court, a decision overturned in part by the appellate court.
Issue: Whether the appellate court was justified in passing a partial eviction decree based on the bonafide need of the landlord (Plaintiff No. 3) and his son, an advocate, and whether one co-owner can file a suit for eviction.
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's decision to grant a partial eviction decree for Block No. 14.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the appellate court correctly assessed the bonafide need of the landlord's son, an advocate, for independent office space. The High Court emphasized that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements, quoting the Supreme Court case of R.C. Tamrakar And Another Vs. Nidi Lekha. The Court disagreed with the trial court's view that the advocate could share office space with his father, stating that it was "impracticable" and potentially unethical given the son's role as an Additional Public Prosecutor. The Court also affirmed the settled legal position that even one co-owner can file a suit for eviction, citing Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain, provided the other co-owners do not object. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the partition was challenged, as none of the co-owners raised any objection in the writ petition, appeal, or original suit. The court also noted that the appellate court had fairly considered the hardship to the tenant, granting only a partial eviction.
