1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATEN APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2145 OF 2009 (M/s. Jawahar Stores through Proprietors Ltd. & Ors. vs. Dinanath Martandappa Bondre & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JUNE 10, 2009. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Wakode, learned counsel for the Caveator - respondent No.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2008 upholding concurrent findings of two Courts below that the respondent is entitled to terminate the tenancy under clause 13(3)(v) and (vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The contention of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge ought not to have upheld the finding of bonafide need since the respondent – landlord had not pleaded bonafide need in accordance with law and in any case was not entitled to terminate the tenancy on the ground that he had an alternate accommodation. As far as first point is concerned, we do not 2 see any inadequacy in the pleadings. He has pleaded that he was compelled to live with his son at Babulgaon, who appears to be a government servant at Babulgaon and his residence is not suitable for joint family. He has also pleaded that he does not wish to live at the mercy of his son and daughter in law at Babulgaon. Besides the above, he has pleaded that he owns no other house other than the house in the possession of the respondent and he needs that house for the purpose of residence and for starting some business. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the pleadings only indicate a mere desire and wish to recover possession of the premises and do not state bonafide need. We, therefore, consider the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhadeo vs. Laxmibai, reported at 1979 Mh. L.J. 545, as misplaced. As far as second aspect is concerned, it has been found concurrently by the Courts below that the respondent does not have any other house which he can use for his residence. We find that these findings are based on cogent reason. We further agree with the Courts below and also the learned Single Judge that merely because the respondent owns about 11750 square metres of vacant land cannot be said to constitute accommodation available to the respondent. The land owned by the respondent has been found to be vacant 3 and is obviously inhabitable. In this view of the matter, we see no reason why the respondent should not be allowed to have possession of his house which is said to be about 35’ x 40’ for his bonafide need. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants faintly urged that the finding under clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order pertaining to the tenant having found alternate accommodation is not sustainable. As regards this aspect, the appellate Court has observed as follows : “On perusal of the record of the lower Court, it reveals that, the appellant in his cross examination has admitted that, there is the accommodation of his son beside the accommodation in dispute, and there is shop in it. Moreover, he has admitted that, in ward No.10, there is two storied residential house. On perusal of the documents in the case, it does not show that, the appellant and his sons are residing separately and, therefore, it is clear that, the defendant has the right over the accommodation of his sons and therefore, it is clear that, the defendant has the right over the accommodation of his sons and therefore, it is clear that, the appellant is having alternate arrangement and the said fact has been mentioned properly by the S.D.O.” 4 This is also concurrent finding of fact which is not liable to be interfered with. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.