Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     2021       OF      2012   

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.20833/2011)

SIDARAMAPPA KASHINATH LINGSHETTI            Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

MISHRILAL RAMJIVAN SARDA (D) THROUGH L.RS.  Respondent(s)

           O     R     D     E     R   

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the  

judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2011 and 3rd  

February, 2011 passed by the High Court of  

Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.6447 of  

1999 whereby the High Court partly allowed the writ  

petition and remanded the matter to the Trial Court.  

3. The appellant-landlord filed a suit for  

eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit  

premises  (consisting of ground floor and  1st floor  

having 5 rooms on each floor) on the ground of bona

Page 2

2

fide personal requirement. The Trial Court on  

finding that the tenant had unlawfully sublet a part  

of the suit premises and the landlord having proved  

the bona fide personal requirement, decreed the suit  

for eviction in favour of the appellant-landlord and  

directed the respondent-tenant to hand over the  

vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises  

within a period of six months.  

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial  

Court the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before  

the District Court, Solapur. By his Judgment dated  

7.9.1999, the Additional District Judge, Solapur  

confirmed the decree of eviction passed by the Trial  

Court and dismissed the appeal. The respondent-

tenant thereafter filed a writ petition before the  

Bombay High Court challenging the concurrent  

judgments passed by the Trial Court and the District  

Court. A statement was made on behalf of the  

respondent-tenant that the tenant shall surrender  

the entire first floor out of the suit premises to  

the landlord. The High Court accepting the said  

statement, granted stay only in respect of the  

ground floor of the suit premises. The possession of

Page 3

3

the first floor of the suit premises was handed over  

to the appellant-land o 10.8.2000.  

5. By its judgment dated 2.2.2011/3.2.2011 the  

High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court  

for considering as to whether it would be possible  

to divide the ground floor premises into two parts  

without causing any hardship to either side and to  

pass a partial decree for possession. The appellant-

landlord is, thus, before this Court challenging the  

judgment and order passed by the High Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the  

parties and have perused the impugned judgment as  

also the judgments of the Courts below.  

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case,  

we are of the considered view that the High Court  

was not justified in remanding the matter to the  

Trial Court regarding the ground floor of the suit  

premises. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed  

by the High Court is set aside, the order passed by  

the Trial Court is restored and the appeal is  

allowed. The parties are directed to bear their

Page 4

4

respective costs.  

8. However, in the interest of justice we deem  

it appropriate to grant one year's time to the  

respondent-tenant for vacating the premises upon  

filing usual undertaking in the Registry of this  

Court within four weeks from today.   

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi; February 10, 2012.