1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 461 OF 1999 Manohar s/o Kisan Bidve ...Petitioner Versus Dr. Omchand Bharuka ...Respondent ..... Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 6TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller in ARC No.34/ARC/88 dated 27.6.1994 and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No. 46 of 1994 dated 24.3.1999. 2 It appears that ARC No. 34 of 1988 was filed by the plaintiffs landlord against the applicant herein in respect of the shop of house bearing Municipal No. 1-9-19/P on the ground of default in payment, personal requirement and securing the alternative accommodation by the defendant/tenant on 19.12.1988. It further appears that the Additional Rent Controller held against the original defendant on all 2 three counts i.e. default in payment, personal requirement and securing alternate accommodation by the defendant. 3 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant herein filed Rent Appeal No. 46 of 1994 before the leaned District Judge, Aurangabad. The said appeal came to be decided on 24.3.1999. So far as the findings of the Rent Controller on the point of default in payment and alternate accommodation by the defendant is concerned, the said findings are reversed by the appellate Court. However, the appellate Court held against the present revision applicant who is original defendant on the point of requirement of the suit premises for running dispensary by the original plaintiff landlord. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this Civil Revision Application is filed. 4 Counsel appearing for the applicant urged that since the respondent, who was doctor by profession, is no more and therefore, the purpose for requiring the suit premises for running dispensary does not survive. Even the L.Rs. who are brought on record are not doctors by profession. In the light of this counsel for the applicant would submit that the very bonafide requirements of the original respondent gets vanished due to his death and none of the L.Rs. are doctor by profession. 3 5 The respondent though served, today none appears for them. Advocate, Shri S.S. Gangakhedkar, informed this court that no objection has been obtained from him by the respondents herein and therefore, he has no instructions to appear in the matter. 6 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant I have perused the impugned judgment and orders. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter since the appellate court has held in favour of the respondents only on the ground that the respondent wanted the suit premises for the purpose of running dispensary. It is not in dispute that the respondents who was doctor by profession is no more and the none of the L.Rs. of the respondents are doctor by profession. 7 Mr. Soman, learned counsel for the applicants had placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Govind Vs. Dr. Jeetsingh, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 198. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bonafide must be judged from the objective viewpoint and not merely by assertion or denial of the parties. In doing so court should take into cautious consideration all subsequent events. In the present case prima facie it might be possible that the High Court was in error in interfering with the 4 findings of the appellate Court as in second appeal the scope of interference by the High court is limited, but in view of the subsequent event of the death of the landlord’s wife after decision of the High court, it must be held that there was no more bonafide need of the landlord to evict the tenant of the premises in question.” 8 In the light of the discussion made herein above, the finding of the appellate court that the respondents are in need of suit premises for running the dispensary gets eclipsed. In the result, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. Civil Revision Application is allowed to the above extent. Rule made absolute. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/