{"id":161881,"date":"1996-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996"},"modified":"2019-02-21T23:56:07","modified_gmt":"2019-02-21T18:26:07","slug":"mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 468\t 1996 SCALE (5)302<\/div>\n
Author: N G.T.<\/div>\n
Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMRS. MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S TRADERS & AGENCIES & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (6)   468\t  1996 SCALE  (5)302\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nNANAVATI. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the
\nHigh Court  of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3600 of 1990. The
\nappellant had  filed that writ petition against the judgment
\nand order  passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes
\nCourt whereby  the  judgment  of  the  Small  Causes  Court,
\nBombay, was reversed and the appellant’s suit was dismissed.
\nThe appellant  is an  owner of\ta flat\tand a  garage in the
\nbuilding known\tas ‘Tarangini’ in Bombay. This suit premises
\nbelonged to her father and were gifted to her in 1972. By an
\nagreement dated\t 29.3.1972 the\tsaid premises  were given by
\nthe appellant  to Respondent  No.1 firm on leave and licence
\nbasis  for   the  purpose  of  its  use\t and  occupation  by
\nRespondent No.2\t who is\t a partner  of that  firm. She filed
\nSuit No.  R.A.E. 372\/1276\/83 in of the Court of Small Causes
\nat Bombay  seeking eviction  of he respondents on the ground
\nthat she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide
\nfor her person occupation. In the plaint she stated that she
\nand her\t husband do  not have any other residential premises
\nof their  own in  Bombay. Her husband is a paid Assistant in
\nM\/s. A.F.  Ferguson &  Co. a  firm of Chartered Accountants.
\nThat firm  has taken  on lease\tone flat in a building named
\n‘Park View’.  It had  then given  the same  to\tone  of\t its
\npartners Mr.  Kalra for\t his occupation.  As Mr.  Kalra\t was
\ntransferred from  Bombay  to  Delhi,  the  flat\t had  become
\navailable temporarily  and therefore  it was  allowed to  be
\nused by\t the  appellant’s  husband  purely  on\ta  temporary
\ncaretaker basis.  As the said partner is likely to return to
\nBombay her husband will be required to vacate that flat and,
\ntherefore, they\t will be  without any accommodation whatever
\nin Bombay.  She further\t stated that she had called upon the
\nrespondents to\tvacate the  suit premises  in  1974  and  in
\nresponse to  one of  her letters the respondents had in 1976
\nand again  in 1978  assured the\t appellant that\t they  would
\nvacate the  suit premises  as soon  as the  flat  booked  by
\nRespondent No.2\t in a  building called ‘Rambha’ would become
\nready for  occupation. Even  though the said flat has become
\navailable to  Respondent No.2  he is  not vacating  the suit
\npremises. She also stated that it is not possible for her to
\nacquire any  other premises  in Bombay\tand, therefore, if a
\ndecree for  possession is not passed she will suffer greater
\nhardship. The suit was opposed on the ground that possession
\nof the\tpremises then  in occupation  of her husband was not
\ninsecure or  temporary and that the suit premises are really
\nnot required  by the  appellant reasonably and bona fide for
\nher occupation. Later on in 1987, during the pendency of the
\nsuit, the  appellant, took  out a notice of motion for early
\nhearing of  the suit. Therein she stated that she is serving
\nas a  lecturer in  the Education  Department of\t the  Bombay
\nUniversity. As\tthe respondents\t did  not  vacate  the\tsuit
\npremises in spite of her request and the assurances given by
\nthe respondents\t and as there was a problem of accommodation
\nin Bombay  her husband\thad to\tget himself  transferred  to
\nMadras in  1984. She  also obtained  study leave and went to
\nMadras to  stay with  him. As  her application\tfor  further
\nleave was  rejected she\t had to\t return to Bombay and report
\nfor duty in July 1987. Since then she has been residing with
\nher parents  as she  does  not\thave  any  accommodation  in
\nBombay.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of her\t case the appellant examined herself
\nand led\t evidence of P.W.3 Mr.Eknath Kshirsagar her husband,
\nP.W.5 Mr.  Maluste her\tfather, P.W.2, Dr. Momin Mohinuddin,
\nHead  of   the\tDepartment   of\t Foreign  Languages  in\t the
\nUniversity of  Bombay, P.W.4  Mr. Shohrab  Burjoriji  Vakil,
\nSecretary of  the Royal\t Bombay Yatch Club. On behalf of the
\nrespondents, Respondent\t No.2 was  examined  as\t a  witness.
\nDuring her  cross-examination the  appellant stated that her
\nhusband was  a\ttenant\tof  a  bed  room  flat\tin  ‘Olympus
\nApartments’ and\t that after  her  marriage  with  Eknath  on
\n24.10.1971 she\tstayed with  her husband  in that  flat till
\nOctober 1972.  Appellant’s husband  Eknath in  his  evidence
\nstated that  neither he\t nor his  younger  brother  had\t any
\naccommodation in Bombay, after his father left for Zambia in
\nearly 1968. After returning from England in November 1968 he
\ntook on\t lease a  flat in  ‘Olympus Apartments’\t and started
\nliving therein along with his brother from December 1968. As
\nhis brother had disclosed his intention to marry in May 1972
\nand as\this wife  was expecting\t a baby\t he decided  to have
\nanother accommodation.\tHis employer,  M\/s. A.F.  Ferguson &
\nCo. had\t taken on  lease from  Mrs.  Kalra  one\t flat  in  a
\nbuilding named\t‘Park View’  and it was given by the firm to
\nMr. Kalra  for his  occupation as  he was  a partner of that
\nfirm. As  Mr. Kalra  was then  transferred to Delhi the said
\nflat had  become vacant and so his employer permitted him to
\nuse that flat temporarily on caretaker basis. He, therefore,
\nshifted\t to  that  flat\t in  October  1972  whereas  Sridhar
\ncontinued to stay in the ‘Olympus’ flat.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  fact that\tthe appellant’s husband was a tenant
\nof the\t‘Olympus’ flat\twas neither  disclosed in her plaint
\nnor in\ther examination-in-chief  a  contention\t was  raised
\nbefore the  trial court\t that omission\tto state  that\tfact
\namounted to  suppression of  a material\t fact  and  on\tthat
\nground her  claim that\tshe requires  the suit premises bona
\nfide for  her personal\toccupation should  be rejected. This
\ncontention was rejected by the trial court by observing that
\nthe appellant  herself did not have any personal interest in
\nthe ‘Olympus’  flat and\t it was\t not necessary\tfor  her  to
\nmention that  fact in the plaint as they had already shifted
\nfrom that  flat in October 1972 and since then the said flat
\nwas occupied  by Sridhar. The trial court also observed that
\nthe omission  to state\tthe said  fact did  not disclose any
\nmala fide intention on her part.\n<\/p>\n
     On merits,\t the trial  court held\tthat  though  Eknath
\nalone is  the tenant  of the  ‘Olympus’ flat, right from the
\ndate it\t was taken  on lease,  the same was occupied both by
\nEknath and  Sridhar and\t that since October 1972 Sridhar and
\nhis family  consisting of his wife and two sons are residing
\ntherein. It  further held that in view of the partial decree
\npassed in  favour of  the landlady  in respect\tof that flat
\nwhich consists of two bed rooms only, it would be impossible
\nfor the\t two families of Eknath and Sridhar to stay therein.
\nThe trial  court also  held that  Eknath was required by his
\nemployer, M\/s. A.F. Ferguson & Co. to vacate the ‘Park Vies’
\nflat in\t 1984 and it was not available to him for occupation
\nthereafter. The\t trial court  also held that the appellant’s
\nhusband had  to get himself transferred to Madras because of
\nlack of\t accommodation in  Bombay and the appellant also had
\nto stay\t at Madras till July 1987 by remaining on leave. The
\ntrial court believed that after their return from Madras the
\nappellant with her sons has been staying with her father and
\nher husband  has to  stay alone\t in one room in the premises
\nbelonging to  Royal Bombay  Yatch Club\tof  which  he  is  a
\nmember, on  short-term basis.  It, therefore,  held that the
\n‘Olympus’ flat is not really available for occupation by the
\nappellant and her husband because Sridhar is staying in that
\nflat and  the accommodation in ‘Park View’ flat is insecure,
\neven if\t it is\tbelieved that the same is still available to
\nthe appellant’s\t husband, and  thus the appellant has proved
\nthat she  require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide
\nfor occupation\tby herself  and her  family. The trial court
\nalso held that Respondent No.1 being a firm does not require
\nthe suit  premises for\tany  other  purpose  and  as  it  is
\nfinancially well  off no  hardship will be caused to it if a
\ndecree for  eviction is\t passed. The  trial court  also held
\nthat Respondent No.2 has no independent interest in the suit
\npremises and,  therefore, the question as to whether greater
\nhardship would\tbe caused  to him  or not does not arise for
\nconsideration. In  the alternative,  it held  that as he has
\nalready acquired  a flat in ‘Rambha’ having a larger area no
\nhardship will be caused to him also if a decree for eviction
\nis passed.  The trial  court,  therefore,  passed  a  decree
\nagainst the respondents for eviction.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents  preferred an  appeal to  the Appellate
\nBench of  the Small  Causes Court.  The Appellate Bench held
\nthat the appellant ought to have disclosed the fact that her
\nhusband is  a tenant  of the  ‘Olympus’ flat  at  the  first
\navailable opportunity  and the\tsaid  omission\tamounted  to
\nsuppression of\ta material fact. After considering the stand
\ntaken by Eknath and the findings recorded in the proceedings
\nfor eviction  filed by the landlady of the ‘Olympus’ flat it
\nheld that   Eknath  alone is the tenant of the said flat and
\noccupation of  that flat  by Sridhar is totally at the mercy
\nof Eknath  and, therefore,  it cannot  be said that the said
\nflat is\t not available\tto the\thusband of the appellant. It
\nfurther held  that  in\tspite  of  the\tdecree\tfor  partial
\neviction it  is still  possible for  Eknath and\t Sridhar  to
\noccupy the  said flat. Moreover, in view of the death of the
\nlandlady  during   the\tpendency   of  the  appeal  and\t the
\ncontention raised  by Eknath  that the landlady has not left
\nbehind\tany   legal  heir   or\trepresentative\tthere  is  a
\npossibility of\tthe said  flat, in  its\t entirety,  becoming
\navailable to Eknath. As regards the ‘Park View’ flat it held
\nthat there was no evidence on record to show that Eknath was
\nrequired by M\/s. A.F. Ferguson & Co. to vacate the said flat
\nand that  the correspondence  which  was  produced  in\tthat
\nbehalf by  the appellant  could not be relied upon as it was
\n“the internal  correspondence of  the company”.\t It  further
\nheld that  it was-necessary  for the  appellant to  prove be
\nexamining Mrs. Kalra or some other person from the firm that
\nEknath was  really called  upon to  vacate the said flat and
\nthat Eknath  had vacated  it for  that reason. In absence of
\nsuch evidence  the Appellate Bench held that Eknath had left
\nthat flat  voluntarily in order support the appellant’s case
\nfor bona  fide requirement  and in fact there was no real or
\nimminent threat\t to vacate  the said flat. It also held that
\nthe act of vacating the ‘Park View’ flat was an artificially
\ncreated circumstance  to support  the case of the appellant.
\nThus, according\t to the Appellate Bench both the flats being
\navailable to  the appellant’s  husband, the appellant cannot
\nbe said to have proved her case of bona fide requirement. On
\nthe question  of comparative  hardship the  Appellate  Bench
\nheld that there would really be no hardship to the appellant
\nif a  decree for  eviction is  not passed  in her favour. So
\nalso it\t held that  “no hardship  whatever will be caused to
\nthe appellant-tenant  if a  decree for\teviction were passed
\nagainst\t them.”\t It  further  held  that  “the\thardship  of
\nappellant No.2\tcannot be considered as he has been allotted
\nthe suit premises by the appellant No.1 partnership firm and
\nhe  has\t  no  independent   right  to  that  premises.”\t It,
\ntherefore, allowed  the appeal and dismissed the appellant’s
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant,  therefore, preferred a writ petition in
\nthe High  Court of Bombay challenging the judgment and order
\npassed by  the Appellate  Bench. The  High Court  held\tthat
\nsuppression  of\t the  material\tfact  that  the\t appellant’s
\nhusband is  a tenant  of the ‘Olympus’ flat is sufficient to
\ndisentitle her\tfrom getting  a decree of eviction. The High
\nCourt also agreed with the findings and reasons given by the
\nAppellate Bench and dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended by  Mr. Atul Setelwad, learned senior
\ncounsel appearing  for\tthe  appellant\tthat  while  testing
\nreasonable requirement\tof the\tlandlord what is required to
\nbe considered  is the  reality of  the situation and not the
\npossibility of the landlord being able to continue to reside
\nin rented  premises. He\t submitted that\t as a wrong test has
\nbeen applied  by the  Appellate Bench and the High Court in-
\nthis case, that has led to miscarriage of Justice.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Shanti\t Bhushan, learned  senior counsel  appearing
\nfor  the   respondents\ton  the\t other\thand  supported\t the
\njudgments of  the Appellate  Bench and the High Court on the
\nground that  the findings  recorded by\tboth the  courts are
\nquite reasonable, and the view taken cannot be said to be so
\nerroneous as to call for interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In Prativa Devi vs T.V. Krishnan JT 1987 (1) SC 764, to
\nwhich our  attention has  been drawn  by the learned counsel
\nfor the\t appellant, this  Court has  pointed out the correct
\ntest which  has to  be applied\tin finding  out whether\t the
\nrequirement of the landlord is bona fide or not. It has held
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
     “The landlord  is the best judge of
\n     his residential requirement. He has
\n     a complete\t freedom in  the matter.
\n     It is  no concern\tof the Courts to
\n     dictate to the landlord how, and in
\n     what manner,  he should  live or to
\n     prescribe\tfor  him  a  residential
\n     standard of  their own…. There is
\n     no law  which deprives the landlord
\n     of the  beneficial enjoyment of his
\n     property.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It  is  further  held  therein  that  what  is  to  be
\nconsidered is  not merely  the availability  of\t alternative
\naccommodation but  also whether\t the landlord  has  a  legal
\nright to such accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
     The following decisions of the Bombay and Calcutta High
\nCourts relied  upon by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nare also  helpful in  deciding the  question  of  bona\tfide
\nrequirement of\tthe  landlord.\tIn  Dinshaw  Billimoria\t vs.
\nRustomji Master\t 23 Bombay Law Reporter 850, the Bombay High
\nCourt has held that:\n<\/p>\n
     “Ordinarily speaking,  an owner  of
\n     premises, if  he says  he wishes to
\n     use them  for his\town purposes, is
\n     entitled to  do so.  What the  Rent
\n     Act endeavors to provide for is the
\n     case of  a landlord  who evicts the
\n     existing tenants  in order\t that he
\n     may let them to another tenant at a
\n     higher rent, or exact a higher rent
\n     from the  tenant  on  a  threat  of
\n     eviction. It  seems to  me that the
\n     question in  that case  whether the
\n     plaintiff\t    was\t      reasonably
\n     dissatisfied  with\t  the\tpremises
\n     which  he\t rented\t in  Girgaum  is
\n     irrelevant, because  in  any  event
\n     the plaintiff  was entitled to live
\n     in his  own premises.  He\twas  not
\n     bound   to\t  continue   to\t  rented
\n     premises with all the uncertainties
\n     of that tenure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Calcutta  High  Court  in\tBasant\tLal  Saha  vs.\tP.C.
\nChakravarty 54 C.W.N 20 has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “Where a  landlord seeks to eject a
\n     tenant on\tthe ground  of bona fide
\n     requirement within\t the meaning  of
\n     Proviso (f)  of Sec.  11(1) of  the
\n     Rent Control  Act, 1948,  he has to
\n     satisfy three tests:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)   That\t   he\t“requires”   the
\n\t  premises:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) That\tsuch requirement  is for
\n\t  his “own occupation”:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     and (iii)\tThat his  requirement is
\n\t  “bona fide-“.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The word  “require” means more
\n     than mere\twish or\t convenience  or
\n     fancy of the landlord. The landlord
\n     must show some need or necessity.
\n\t  But  it   does  not\tmean  an
\n     absolute  need   or   an\tabsolute
\n     requirement in  the sense\tthat the
\n     landlord\twill\tnot   have   any
\n     accommodation  of\tany  description
\n     and that  he must\tactually  be  in
\n     street before he can demand his own
\n     house for his own occupation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court has  also observed\t therein that  while
\nconsidering the question of bona fide requirement the nature
\nand character  of the  landlord’s temporary accommodation at
\nthe time  when he is asking for a decree for possession, the
\ninsecurity or  otherwise of  the tenure\t that  he  might  be
\nholding at  the time,  the fact\t that he  himself is under a
\nnotice to  quit,  the  scope,  size  and  character  of\t his
\nrequirement are\t all relevant  factors that the Court has to
\nconsider.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ramendra  Mohan Guha  Sarkar vs.  Smt. Bedana  Paul,<\/a>
\n1987(2) All  India Rent\t Control Journal  154, the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court has observed that if a person is in occupation of
\nother premises\ton leave and licence, they are obviously not
\navailable to the landlord for occupation and cannot be taken
\ninto account  for negativing  the claim\t of the landlord for
\nthe premises in question. After referring to the decision of
\nthis Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs. Chandrakant M.Patel,
\nAIR<\/a> 1974  SC 1059  it further  observed that possession of a
\nlicensee is  precarious and  cannot be\tconsidered  suitable
\nalternative accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  rival submissions,  what\twe  have  to
\nconsider is  whether the  Appellate Bench and the High Court
\napplied the  correct test  while  determining  the  question
\nwhether the  appellant requires\t the suit premises bona fide
\nand  reasonably\t for  her  occupation.\tThe  fact  that\t the
\nappellant is  the owner\t of the\t suit premises\tand that she
\ndoes not own any other premises in the City of Bombay is not
\nin dispute.  She does  not poses,  even\t as  a\ttenant,\t any
\npremises in  Bombay. No doubt, she would be entitled to stay
\nin the\tpremises of which her husband is a tenant but if for
\nany reason  her husband\t had parted  with possession of such
\npremises and he same were occupied by her husband’s brother,
\nit cannot  be said  that the said premises were available to
\nher and\t by not referring to those facts she had come to the
\ncourt with  unclean hands  and that by itself was sufficient
\nto disentitle  her from getting a decree of eviction. If the
\nappellant believed  that the  ‘Olympus’ flat  of  which\t her
\nhusband was a tenant was not available for occupation as the
\nsame was  vacated by  her husband  many years  back and\t was
\noccupied by  Sridhar and  his family  and that\tit  was\t not
\npossible or convenient for her and her family to go and stay
\nthere, it  was not  absolutely necessary for her to refer to
\nthose facts  in her plaint. It would have been better if she
\nhad referred  to those facts but mere omission to state them
\nin  the\t  plaint  cannot   be  regarded\t as  sufficient\t for
\ndisentitling her  from claiming\t a decree  for eviction,  if
\notherwise she  is able to prove that she requires reasonably
\nthe suit  premises for her occupation. We are, therefore, of
\nthe opinion  that the  Appellate Bench\tand the\t High  Court
\nclearly went  wrong in\tholding that  the said\tomission was
\nsufficient to  disentitle  her\tfrom  getting  a  decree  of
\neviction and  it also disclosed that her claim was mala fide
\nand not bona fide as required by law.\n<\/p>\n
     The finding  recorded by both the courts that the ‘Park
\nView’  flat  was  available  to\t her  and  her\thusband\t for
\noccupation is the result of not applying the correct test to
\nthe facts  of the case. Eknath was undisputedly not a tenant
\nof the\tsaid flat.  The tenant of the said flat is M\/s. A.F.
\nFerguson &  Co. of  which Eknath  is only  a Director.\tMrs.
\nKalra is  the owner  of that  flat and after it was taken on
\nlease by  the firm  it\twas  given  to\tMr.  Kalra,  another
\nDirector of  the firm  for his\toccupation and use. The firm
\nallowed Eknath to use the said flat temporarily on leave and
\nlicence\t basis\tin  October  1972  as  Mr.  Kalra  was\tthen
\ntemporarily transferred\t to Delhi.  The evidence produced by
\nthe appellant did disclose that the firm had required Eknath
\nto vacate  the same  and it  was not right for the Appellate
\nBench and the High Court to brush aside that evidence on the
\nground that it was “internal correspondence of the company”.
\nEknath could  not have occupied the said flat as a matter of
\nright and  in view  of the  arrangement between the firm and
\nMr. Kalra  as used  by the  evidence on\t record it cannot be
\nsaid, in the context of judging the bona fide requirement of
\nthe appellant,\tthat the  said flat was available to her and
\nher husband  for occupation  even after\t 1984, Even if it is
\nbelieved that Eknath had not really vacated the said flat in
\n1984 and  continued to\tbe in  possession, it cannot be said
\nthat the  possession of\t the said  flat was  such  as  would
\ndisentitle the\tappellant to get a decree of eviction. Being
\na licensee  Eknath’s possession\t of that flat was precarious
\nand therefore,\tcould not  have been  considered as suitable
\nalternative accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards\t the ‘Olympus’\tflat the evidence discloses,
\nand it\tis not\tin dispute,  that Eknath  left that  flat in
\nOctober 1972  and since\t then only  Sridhar and\t his  family
\nmembers have been staying in that flat. It is a two bed room
\nflat having  an area  of 1100 sq. ft. Sridhar has a wife and
\ntwo children  and the  family of  appellant also consists of
\nfour persons. In the suit for eviction filed by the landlady
\nof that flat a partial decree has been passed and Eknath has
\nbeen ordered  to hand  over half  the portion  of that flat.
\nBoth Eknath  and landlady  have challenged  the said partial
\ndecree and  their respective  appeals are pending before the
\nAppellate Court.  In this context the courts had to consider
\nwhether it  can be  said that  the appellant  and Eknath are
\nhaving suitable\t alternative accommodation  and,  therefore,
\nthe appellant’s\t claim that  she requires  the suit premises
\nfor her\t occupation is\tnot reasonable\tand bona  fide.\t The
\nAppellate  Bench   and\tthe   High  Court   considered\t the
\npossibility of\tEknath going back to that flat and occupying
\nit along  with Sridhar and also the possibility that in case
\nthe landlady’s\tappeal is  dismissed and  Eknath’s appeal is
\nallowed the  flat in  its entirety, will become available to
\nEknath and  on that  basis held\t that the  appellant’s claim
\nthat she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide
\nis not\ttrue. As  pointed out  by this\tCourt it  is for the
\nlandlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and
\nthat he is the best judge of his residential requirement. If
\nthe landlord  desires to beneficially enjoy his own property
\nwhen the  other property  occupied by  his as a tenant or on
\nany other basis is either insecure or inconvenient it is not
\nfor the\t courts to  dictate. him  to continue to occupy such
\npremises. Though  Eknath continues  to be  the tenant of the
\n‘Olympus’ flat,\t as a  matter of  fact, it is being occupied
\nexclusively by\tSridhar and  his family\t since October 1972.
\nFor this  reason and also for the reason that because of the
\npartial decree\tpassed against him Eknath is now entitled to
\noccupy the  area of  550 sq.  ft. only,\t it is\tdifficult to
\nappreciate how\tthe Appellate Bench and the High Court could
\nrecord\ta   finding  that  the\t‘Olympus’  flat\t is  readily
\navailable to  the appellant’s  husband\tand  that  the\tsaid
\naccommodation will  be quite sufficient and suitable for the
\nappellant and her family.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  facts and circumstances of the case we
\nare of\tthe view  that the  appellant has proved her case of
\nbona fide requirement and, therefore, the Small Causes Court
\nwas right in passing the decree in her favour. The Appellate
\nBench committed\t a grave error in reversing the same and the
\nHigh  Court  also  committed  an  error\t in  confirming\t the
\njudgment and  order  passed  by\t the  Appellate\t Bench.\t We,
\ntherefore, allow  this appeal,\tset aside  the judgment\t and
\norder passed  by the  High Court  and also  by the Appellate
\nBench and  restore the\tjudgment and  decree passed  by\t the
\nSmall Causes  Court. The  respondents shall  pay the cost of
\nthis appeal to the appellant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 468 1996 SCALE (5)302 Author: N G.T. Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J) PETITIONER: MRS. MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGAR Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S TRADERS & AGENCIES & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/07\/1996 BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-21T18:26:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\\\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-21T18:26:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4022,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\\\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-21T18:26:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\\\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-21T18:26:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-21T18:26:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996"},"wordCount":4022,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996","name":"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-21T18:26:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-meenal-eknath-kshirsagar-vs-ms-traders-agencies-anr-on-11-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs M\/S Traders & Agencies & Anr on 11 July, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}