IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1162/2011 PRIMARY CONSUMER COOP STORES ..VS.. HARISH JOAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 18, 2011. Heard Shri Mardikar, for the petitioner and Shri Khapre, for the respondent. Both the courts have concurrently held that the landlord/respondent was entitled to possession of the suit property under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as the landlord had proved that he required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff landlord was a MBBS Graduate and was to complete his post graduation in Gynecology. The wife of the plaintiff was also an anesthetist. The plaintiff therefore, desired to occupy the suit premises for starting a hospital and a maternity home at Akot. The suit premises was situated in the heart of the city and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, both the courts held that the landlord had clearly proved that he required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. The findings recorded by both the courts in regard to bonafide need are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent had not disclosed in the plaint that he was in occupation of another premises in Akot which was being used for residential purposes and hence he had not approached the court with clean hands is liable to be rejected as it was the case of the respondent that he did not have any other premises at Akot for starting the hospital and maternity home. Merely because the landlord was in possession of some other premises in Akot which he used for residential purposes, it cannot be said that the landlord was not entitled to grant of permission under section 16(1)(g) of the Act of 1999. The judgment reported in 2004(Supp) Bombay Cases Reporter Page 333 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the officer of the municipal council had given certain admissions in his cross- examination which demolished the case of the respondent is also liable to be rejected as the said admissions of the officer of the municipal council in his cross-examination did not show that the respondent had not submitted any map/ plan to the authority for grant of sanction. So also, it is highly improbable that the respondent would actually avail the loan for the construction of the house on the property in question from the bank even before the petitioner vacated the suit premises and hence the submission of the petitioner that loan was not availed and the need was not genuine is rejected. Since the findings recorded by both he courts on the issue of bonafide need are pure findings of fact and are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, they call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP