ROYAL VASUDHARA CO-OP. HSC LTD.versusRAMBAHADUR BARODI

2026:BHC-AS:35132

                                                                 201-CRA-974-2010.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 974 OF 2010
   Swapnil



               Royal Vasudhara Co-operative
               Housing Society Ltd.
               Having its registered office at
               Dr. Charat Singh Colony,
               Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093.                   …Applicant


                    Vs.


               Rambahadur Barodi.
               Adult Indian Inhabitant of Bombay
               Residing at Rear portion of Garage
               Royal Vasundhara Co-operative
               Housing Society Ltd. Compound,
               Dr. Charat Singh Colony,
               Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093.                   …Respondent


               Mr. Shreeganesh Khaire a/w. Ms. Gayatri Shenui for the
               applicant.

                                       CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                       DATE :           17th AUGUST 2026

               JUDGMENT :


               1.    This civil revision application is filed by the original

               plaintiff to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the

                                                 1/12
                                              201-CRA-974-2010.docx


appellate bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai

allowing the respondent’s appeal and setting aside the trial

court’s decree in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court had

decreed the suit on the grounds of default, bonafide

requirement of the plaintiff, and nuisance and annoyance

created by the respondent. In an appeal preferred by the

respondent, the said decree is reversed.


2.   The respondent was employed by the plaintiff society

and was permitted to reside in the society premises in lieu of

his service. The respondent has accordingly been occupying

the rear portion of the garage as a residence since 1977. The

employment was terminated w.e.f. 1 st June 1984. The

respondent filed a complaint in the Labour Court, and his

prayer for reinstatement with full back wages was dismissed.

The plaintiff was directed by the Labour Court to make

payment towards the salary for one year. The respondent

filed a declaratory suit for seeking a declaration of his

tenancy. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 8 th September

1992 calling upon the respondent to pay arrears of rent at the

rate of Rs. 100/- per month from 1 st June 1984, thereby

terminating the tenancy. The respondent issued a reply dated



                             2/12
                                              201-CRA-974-2010.docx


17th September 1992, disputing the rent amount claimed at

Rs. 100/- per month. He contended that he was regularly

paying the rent of Rs. 25/- per month. However, the receipts

were not issued. He thus contended that he had not

committed any default in the payment of rent. The reply was

responded to by filing a rejoinder notice denying the

allegations made by the tenant. The applicant thereafter filed

the suit for eviction on the ground of default, bona fide

requirement and nuisance.


3.   It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant failed to

make payment of the arrears. Hence, the tenancy was

terminated, and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for

eviction on the ground of default, bona fide requirement and

nuisance. The plaintiff contended that, to conduct the society

meetings and store, the plaintiff needed premises occupied

by the tenant. The allegation regarding nuisance created by

the respondent’s family members was also specifically

pleaded.


4.    The defendant filed his written statement and denied

the suit claim. He contended that he was working as a part-

time water pump operator and after his services were


                             3/12
                                             201-CRA-974-2010.docx


terminated, he was regularly paying the rent. The orders

passed by the labour court were produced by the plaintiff in

support of the termination of employment and to seek rent

from 1st June 1984. During the pendency of the eviction suit,

the respondent withdrew his suit for declaration of his

tenancy. On the ground of bona fide requirement, the plaintiff

produced documentary evidence and examined the chairman

and one member of the society to support the grounds of

bona fide requirement and nuisance created by the

respondent.


5.   The defendant also examined himself and relied upon

the orders passed by the labour court. There is no dispute

that the defendant failed to comply with the demand notice.

Even after the issues were framed, the defendant failed to

deposit the arrears as demanded, along with interest and

costs. The trial court had passed an order on 13 th December

1993 directing the defendant to deposit Rs. 60/- per month

from January 1994 onwards on or before the 10 th day of each

month. Since the defendant failed to comply with the demand

notice, the trial court held him as a defaulter and passed a

decree of eviction on the ground of default. The trial court



                             4/12
                                               201-CRA-974-2010.docx


also accepted the plaintiff’s allegations of nuisance created

by the respondent. Based on the evidence on record, the

bona fide requirement of the society and hardship were also

found in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the trial court passed a

decree on the ground of default, bona fide requirement and

nuisance.


6.    The appeal court has reversed the findings on the

ground of default, holding that after the termination of the

employment, no notice was issued to the defendant; thus,

the plaintiff was not entitled to demand the rent of Rs. 100/-

per month from 1st June 1984. As far as the issue of bona

fide requirement is concerned, the appellate court held that

the society’s witnesses admitted that the terrace premises

were available for holding meetings. Hence, the bona fide

requirement claimed by the society was not genuine. The

issue of nuisance was also reversed by the appellate court.


7.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

receipt of the demand notice is proved as the defendant had

replied to the same and disputed the rate of rent. However,

the respondent neither filed any application for fixation of the

standard rent nor complied with the demand notice. The


                              5/12
                                                 201-CRA-974-2010.docx


defendant also failed to make payment of the entire arrears

of rent as demanded, along with interest, on the first day of

the hearing of the suit. He further submits that the trial court’s

findings on the plaintiff’s bona fide requirement are

erroneously reversed by the appellate court by holding that

since the terrace premises are available, the requirement is

not bona fide. He submits that substantial evidence was led

to show that the plaintiff required the suit premises to keep

the society's records and furniture, and that they were not

restricted only to holding meetings. He submits that even on

the ground of nuisance, the appellate court has erroneously

disbelieved the contentions raised on behalf of the society.

The evidence on record clearly indicated the nuisance

created by the respondent and his family, as they were

occupying a part of the garage premises, causing a nuisance

to the society.


8.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

sufficient evidence was produced to show the obstruction

and nuisance created by the respondent’s family members

during the meetings of the society conducted in the portion of

the garage which was in possession of the society. He,



                               6/12
                                                 201-CRA-974-2010.docx


therefore, submits that even on the ground of nuisance, the

plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction. Learned counsel for

the applicant submits that the appeal court has erred in

reversing the finding of the trial court where the clear case is

made out on the ground of default, bona fide requirement

and nuisance. He submits that in the absence of compliance

as required under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947

(“Rent Act”), no protection is available to the defendant.


9.    Despite service, none appears for the defendant.


10.   I have perused the application papers and the copies of

the additional documents tendered by the learned counsel for

the applicant. The documents are part of the record

produced in the trial court. The defendant responded to the

demand notice only on the ground that the monthly rent was

Rs. 25/- per month, not Rs. 100/- per month. The defendant

has failed to file any application for standard rent. Hence, the

defendant was liable to pay the amount demanded to avoid

any decree of eviction. The defendant neither applied for

fixation of standard rent nor complied with the demand notice

by depositing the amount of arrears of rent as demanded,


                               7/12
                                                201-CRA-974-2010.docx


along with 9% interest, on the first day of the hearing of the

suit. Despite the trial court permitting the defendant to pay

Rs. 60/- per month during the pendency of the suit, the

defendant did not fully comply with the said order. The trial

court has therefore rightly held that, in view of non-

compliance of the requirement as contemplated under sub-

section (3) of Section 12 of the Rent Act, the plaintiff is

entitled to a decree for eviction on the ground of default.


11.   It is a well-established legal principle that, to avoid a

decree for eviction on the ground of default, the tenant is

required to pay the entire demanded arrears along with

interest on the first date of hearing of the suit. In the present

case, the defendant admittedly has not complied. The

findings recorded by the appellate court for reversing the

decree of eviction on the ground of default is not sustainable.

In view of the admission of the defendant that after

termination of the employment he was occupying the suit

premises as a tenant, he was under an obligation to pay rent.

The reasons recorded by the appellate court that the plaintiff

was required to intimate the defendant regarding the rent at

the rate of Rs. 100/- per month is no ground to reverse the



                              8/12
                                               201-CRA-974-2010.docx


trial court’s decree.


12.   The defendant has claimed that the rate of rent was

Rs. 25/- per month. Hence, either the defendant was

required to file an application for fixation of a standard rent

and make payment as per the orders passed in a standard

rent application, or to deposit the entire demanded amount

with interest on or before the first day of the hearing to avoid

the decree of eviction. None of the conditions is fulfilled. The

appellate court failed to consider the well-established legal

principles governing the grant of a decree of eviction on the

ground of default. The reasons recorded by the appellate

court are not in accordance with the well-settled legal

principles.


13.   So far as the ground of bona fide requirement is

concerned, the evidence produced by the plaintiff proves the

requirement of the plaintiff for bona fide use of suit premises.

Only on the ground of stray admission that the meetings are

conducted in the terrace area, the same cannot be

considered to disbelieve the plaintiff’s pleadings supported

by evidence that the suit premises were bona fide required

by the society for keeping records and furniture of the society


                              9/12
                                              201-CRA-974-2010.docx


and holding meetings.


14.   The defendant has failed to lead any evidence to prove

any hardship. Hence, in the absence of any pleadings

supported by any evidence that the defendant would suffer

any hardship, the appellate court has erred in not considering

the issue of bona fide requirement and hardship in favour of

the plaintiff. The reasons recorded by the appellate court

regarding the appreciation of evidence on availability of the

terrace area is not sustainable when there is no dispute that

the society required the premises for its bona fide use. To

avoid a decree on the ground of bona fide requirement, if the

defendant seeks to claim protection on the ground of

hardship, it is the obligation of the defendant to plead and

prove that, despite making an attempt, he was unable to

secure any other premises. In the absence of any such

pleadings and supporting evidence, the trial court’s findings

on bona fide requirement need to be confirmed. The appeal

court’s findings on disbelieving the ground of bona fide

requirement are not in accordance with the pleadings and

evidence on record.


15.   So far as the ground of nuisance is concerned, in the


                             10/12
                                                 201-CRA-974-2010.docx


absence of any satisfactory evidence, the ground of nuisance

disbelieved by the appellate court would not warrant any

interference. However, in view of the admitted facts and the

available evidence, as discussed in the above paragraphs,

the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground of

default and bona fide requirement.


16.    For the reasons recorded above, the civil revision

application is allowed by passing the following order :


I.     The judgment and decree dated 26 th February 2010,

passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court,

Mumbai, in Appeal No. 18 of 2008, is quashed and set aside.


II.    Appeal No. 18 of 2008 is dismissed.


III.   Judgment and decree dated 26 th October 2007 passed

by the learned judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in

R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 412/1234 of 1992 is confirmed on the

ground of default and bona fide requirement.


IV.    The defendant is accordingly ordered to vacate and

hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit

premises to the plaintiff within two months from today.


V.     The defendant shall pay an amount of arrears of rent in

                              11/12
                                               201-CRA-974-2010.docx


terms of prayer clause ‘b’ of the suit within two months from

today.


VI.   Decree be drawn accordingly.


17.   The civil revision application is allowed in the aforesaid

terms.


18.   Interim/Civil applications, if any, are disposed of as

infructuous.




                                          [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                             12/12