1 wp 8123.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8123 OF 2011 Ajitkumar Vasant Firodiya and another .. Petitioners Versus Bashirkhan Husainkhan Goniwale (Dead) through L.Rs. Aminabi Bashirkhan Goniwale and others .. Respondents Shri A. H. Kasliwal, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri L. B. Pallod, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1-C to 1-E. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent had instituted a suit for eviction against the petitioners under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act on multifarious grounds. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The petitioners preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also confirmed the decree of eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The other grounds for eviction are negatived by the Court. Aggrieved thereby the 2 wp 8123.11 defendants have filed present petition. 2. Shri A. H. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for petitioners contends that the Courts below have given perverse finding while allowing the suit on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. To substantiate the fact that the landlord's family has 20 members there was no pleading to that effect. The pleadings were vague. No names of the persons were given. The evidence which was sought to be produced in the shape of birth certificates was produced after the evidence was closed and the defendants did not get any opportunity to cross examine the landlord. Moreover the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the landlord's family has 13 members. There is no basis for the same. 3. The learned counsel further contends that there was no genuine need for the landlord of the suit premises. But it was merely a desire and no decree for eviction can be passed on the basis of the same. The alternate accommodation which is considered by the Court is in respect of commercial premises which also admeasures 750 square feet and the petitioners father only has 1/5th share in the same. The same could not have been considered as an alternate accommodation for residential 3 wp 8123.11 purpose. The Court has not properly construed the concept of comparative hardship. The Courts have even failed to consider the property at Mukund Nagar of the landlord and same is sufficient to accommodate all the family members and they have ample space therein. The landlord cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants. The learned counsel contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and thereby have arrived at erroneous conclusion. 4. Shri Pallod, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlord supports the order passed by the Courts below. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the judgments, the part of the deposition and the pleadings. Both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that the landlord requires the suit premises bonafidely for personal occupation. It is a trite law that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the premises. It has been observed by the Courts and more particularly in para 23 by the Appellate Court that even the defendants have admitted that some of the family members of the plaintiff are required to stay in a rented premises. The said admission of the defendants is sufficient to 4 wp 8123.11 show the need of the landlord/plaintiff. The birth certificates produced are exhibited by the Court probably being public documents. It has been observed that there are 13 members in the family of the plaintiff and some are required to stay at a rented premises. The defendant No. 1 has only stepped into witness box on behalf of tenants and he has admitted that he resides in the separate premises and only the defendant No. 2 resides in the suit premises. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant No. 2 during this period of the pendency of proceedings has even taken efforts to find out any other accommodation. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any error committed by the Courts in passing decree of eviction in favour of the landlord and against the tenant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement and comparative hardship also been proved in favour of the landlord. 7. In the light of the above, no error is committed by the Courts while passing the impugned judgments. The writ petition as such, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 8. At this stage, Shri Kasliwal, the learned counsel for petitioners states that, the petitioner No. 2 is residing in the suit 5 wp 8123.11 premises with his family. It would take time to find out suitable accommodation. As such, seeks one years time to vacate the premises. Shri Pallod, the learned counsel for respondents opposes the same and submits that the tenant is prosecuting the matter since the year 2000 and the tenant should have found out alternate accommodation by now. 9. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner No. 2 is residing in the suit premises, I am inclined to grant some time to the petitioner to vacate. I therefore grant time to the petitioners to vacate the suit premises till 30th April, 2012 on condition that the petitioners submit an undertaking to this Court within a period of four (4) weeks from today that the petitioners shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents/landlord on or before 30th April, 2012. The petitioners shall not create any third party interest nor shall encumber the suit premises in whatsoever manner. The petitioners shall deposit the rent regularly every month with the respondents/landlord. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11