Here, in the case before us, the leased property is vacant land. But the Courts below have spoken about comparative hardship. So the Corporation and Firm maintain that the adjudication was under Section 13 (1) (g) rather than Section 13 (1) (i). According to them, as wrong standards have been applied, the decree stands vitiated. This plea was raised for the first time--in the revision. But, I reckon, it is a question of law. Let us consider it.
73. First, both Sections 13 (1) (g) and (i) are substantive provisions; they are not procedural provisions. Second, Sections 13 (2) and (3) have fixed the adjudicatory parameters: what aspects should be considered when the leased property is with structures or is vacant. The Appellate Court as well as the trial Court have considered the Owner's reasonable, bona fide need elaborately. They have concluded that the Owners needed the whole extent for their personal use--to cater to the increasing needs of their growing family. In addition, the Courts have also considered the relative hardship. Perhaps, that consideration of relative hardship may be extraneous or unnecessary. But it does not vitiate the outcome. It proves fatal if something essential has not been considered; it only proves redundant if something extraneous is considered, besides the essential having already been considered. As rightly contended by the Owners, the Courts put heavier onus on them; they were asked to meet an extra criterion--the comparative hardship--which is not required under Section 13 (1) (i). If at all anyone has been prejudiced, it must be the Owners not the Corporation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Civil Revision Application No. 561 of 2018 and 562 of 2016 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2005 in Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1998
Decided On: 27.04.2020
K.B. Lahoti and Company and Ors. Vs. Champalal Vithuram Jajoo and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
Citation: 2020(5) MHLJ 196,MANU/MH/0535/2020.
Read full judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment