1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 518/2010 Ajabrao K. Raut -: versus :- Keshav Kondopant Jadhav Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 5, 2010. Heard Shri M.D. Samel, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri G.N. Khanzode, learned counsel for respondent. Rent Controller as also Appellate Authority have found that respondent has established bonafide need. Shri Samel, learned counsel contends that two shop blocks on ground floor were available to respondent and if there was pressing need, he could have utilized the same. He states that one premises are given to M/s. Care Beauty Parlour, while the other premises are given to his son Satish. He further points out that even on first floor, tenants have been inducted. He has invited attention to the evidence on record that sons of landlord are well placed. Landlord himself is financial in sound condition and of advance age and hence does not need the suit premises for starting any business. According to him, the reason that respondent / landlord wants to start any business or business with his son, is false and has been given only to oust the petitioner. He has invited attention to the judgment reported at 2010 [1] AIR Bom. R. 772 (Rajesh Jagannath Helge .vrs. Sau. Vimalaben 2 Mangalkuma r Punjabi and another); 2006 [ 3] Mh.L.J. 2 0 (Mahavir Tea Company and others .vrs. Additiona Collector, Nagpupr and others); 2004 [s upp.] Bom,.C.R. 333 (Tarachand Hassaram Shandasani .vrs. Durgashan ar G. Shroff and others ) ; AIR 199 8 SC 994 (Sri Balaji Kr shna Hardware Stores .vrs. Srinivasaiah) and AIR 19 81 SC 1 11 (Hasmat Rai and another .vrs. Raghunath Prasad), o urge t hat landlord has not only to plead the need and its e tent, but also to prove it. He has invited attention to cross xamination of landlord to urge that in present circumsta ces, that has not been done. Landlord has accepted that he is retired and he has filed proceedings for possession of suit block so as to enable him to start hardware business. The proceedings are initiated by him in the year 1990 when he was 60 years old i.e. after his retirement. The subsequent developments show that he has filed suit against another tenant Mr. Mehta, also for his eviction. The premises given to Care Beauty Parlour are a porch and the premises in occupation of son Satish for running a ladies corner is small area in the passage of the suit property. It has not been show that any shop block as such had fallen vacant after the institution of the proceedings before Rent Controller on ground floor and same was again let-out by respondent landlord. The premises belong to respondent. He has finance with him to invest and desire to do business. The sound financial condition cannot be bar for that purpose. I therefore, do not find any case made out warranting interference in concurrent findings. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. Shri Samel, learned counsel for petitioner states that period of 6 weeks should be given to petitioner/tenant to challenge the present order. Shri Khanzode, learned counsel points out that the Civil Suit for eviction is already decreed. In the circumstances, delivery of possession is 3 stayed for a period of six weeks from today. Interim protection shall cease to operate automatically after expiry of said period. JUDGE Rgd.