Anil Satyavijay Kilor JUDGMENT
Anil Satyavijay Kilor, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
3. The judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 of eviction on the ground of bonafide need passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur and confirmed by District Judge-IV, Nagpur vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017, against the petitioners/tenants, is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Shri Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, makes following submissions:
(a) The normal rule is that, in any litigation rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtained at the commencement of the lis. But this is the subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of facts or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the molding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the same;
(b) After the death of the original plaintiff and the landlord, the decree on the ground of bonafide need ought not to have been passed by both the Courts-below as the suit premises was sought to be vacated on the ground of personal need. It is submitted that because of death of original plaintiff, the said need does not subsist;
(c) Both the Courts below failed to consider and appreciate the case of the petitioners on the issue of comparative hardship;
(d) There was a settlement between the petitioners and the respondents about the sale of the suit house and the said change in circumstance and the fact that the suit house is no more needed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, was not considered by both the Courts below.
6. Shri Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Jai Prakash Gupta...v....Riyaz Ahamad MANU/SC/1776/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 197 and Sheshambal ...v.... Chelur Corpn. Chelur Building MANU/SC/0115/2010 : (2010) 3 SCC 470.
7. On the other hand, Shri Vishwarupe, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, makes following submissions:
(a) On bonafide need specific pleadings are made that the suit house is needed for personal need of the original plaintiff as well as his family, therefore, even after the death of the original plaintiff, the need subsists.
(b) Though there was a settlement and it was intended to sell the suit house, however, the decision was subsequently, changed and now the respondents needed the suit house for their bonafide need.
(c) Both the Courts have rightly considered the issue of comparative hardship.
8. Shri Vishwarupe, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balwant P. Doshi Vs. Shantaben MANU/MH/0537/2002 : 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 473.
9. In light of the rival contentions, I have perused the record and the both the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below.
10. Taking the issue of bonafide need first, on perusal of the plaint, particularly para 9 of it, shows that specific pleadings were made by the original plaintiff about the bonafide need to the effect that the original plaintiff required the premises in question reasonably and bonafide for his own occupation and for the occupation of the persons namely his family members for whose benefit also, the property was built.
11. Thus, there are sufficient pleadings as regards bonafide need of........