1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4650 OF 2008 Daljitsingh Rehan ..vs.. Ramdutta Sharma ================================= CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:23.10.2008 Petition challenges the order by Ad-hoc District Judge Nagpur in R.C.A.460/2006 in appeal under section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 decreeing the suit of respondent/ plaintiff on account of his bonafide need. Trial court did not accept that need and therefore had dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 holding that enough accommodation is available with the landlord who is BAMS Doctor practicing since 1996 to expand his dispensary. It further held that the need to expand itself has not been established by placing any comparative data on record. By relying on these observations learned counsel for petitioner argues that alleged need of expansion is pressed into service just to evict the petitioner. Advocate Naidu on the other hand contends that the judgment and decree passed by the lower court is correct. Perusal of the judgment and decree of trial court reveals that before trial court the present petitioner attempted to show that on the south side of dispensary there was bedroom of respondent and same could have been used as dispensary and dispensary could have been expanded in that direction. It was also attempted to show that some courtyard was lying vacant and same also could have been used for dispensary. 2 Advocate Naidu has pointed out that in fact present petitioner in his cross examination accepted that there was a tin shed constructed by respondent and that tin shed was being utilized by him for his business. Material on record therefore established the need of of the landlord. Landlord is a qualified Doctor in practice since last 12 years. Thus it is for him how to conduct his business. Premises are available and belonging to him. I therefore find that the trial court was in error in not decreeing the suit under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. Finding of lower appellate court are neither perverse nor erroneous and there is no error of jurisdiction. Writ Petition therefore dismissed no cost. At this stage Advocate Dhatrrak seeks to time till 31.3.2009 to vacate pointing out that the petitioner is having his bicycle repair shop at that place. Request is being opposed by Advocate Naidu, however, in these circumstances time as prayed for is granted to petitioner to vacate, subject to filing undertaking with the Registry of this Court by 11.11.2008 that he shall vacate accordingly by clearing all arrears and by paying costs of suit. If the affidavit is not filed by 11.11.2008, respondent/ landlord shall be at liberty to execute the decree. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE smp.