1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3335 OF 2008 (VIDYARATAN SURAJLAL THORGAVANKAR & ANR. Vs MANAKCHAND HIRALAL SHRAWAGI) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 31, 2008. 1. This is tenant's petition taking exception to judgment of the learned Additional Collector, Buldana, whereby the learned Additional Collector set aside the Rent Controller's order rejecting permission to issue quit notice. 2. The landlord had sought permission to issue quit notice to the tenant on the ground of bonafide need and for reconstructing the house since it was in dilapidated condition. On the other grounds, on which permission to issue quite notice was sought, the learned Rent Controller as well as Additional Collector held in favour of the tenant. 2 3. I have heard Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that bonafide need of the landlord was not at all proved and that the landlord admitted having sold two properties in the year 1985, i.e. an year before he applied to the Rent Controller for permission to issue quit notice. This application was made on 10.10.1986. The Rent Controller had upheld this contention of the tenant and refused permission on this ground. The Additional Collector, however, held that when the properties were sold, may be, the landlord did not need the premises and, therefore, sale of the properties does not show that he does not have bonafide need on 10.10.1986. The appellate authority has discussed the evidence tendered on behalf of the landlord and observed that the landlord needed the premises in anticipation of his retirement for setting up some business at Khamgaon. 4. If the landlord owns several properties he is at liberty to sell some of those properties in order to create liquid assets or to meet his needs. He cannot be restricted simply because there are some tenants in some properties. Otherwise, 3 an occupant of every such property would say that the property in occupation of others should be sold. Therefore, the sale of the properties does indicate absence of bonafide need for the property which is subject matter of this petition. No Court would say that the landlord can be forced to occupy a property which may be inconvenient for him. It should be his choice as to where he would like to set up his business. Therefore, the finding of the appellate authority on this count cannot be faulted. 5. As regards the fact that the building has become dilapidated the appellate authority has relied on the notice issued by the Municipality on 25.09.1986 that the building has to be demolished. The absence of engineer's report would not be fatal. In these circumstances, so long as it is not shown that the notice from the Municipality was collusive or obtained by the landlord by unlawful means and such does not appear to be the case, the finding cannot be faulted. The appellate Authority records that when the Rent Controller inspected the property in presence of the parties, some part was found to be dilapidated 4 as recorded by the Rent Controller in his report. Therefore, even on this count, permission granted by the appellate Authority cannot be faulted. 6. It may be seen that the landlord began his odyssey to secure possession of his own house way back in the year 1986 i.e. 22 years ago. After the quit notice, he will have to file a suit before the Civil Judge Junior Division. After the decision of this suit there would be a first and possibly even a second appeal. It is possibly not intended that a landlord who wanted possession of his property to set up his business after anticipated retirement in the year 1986, should be able to set only his grandsons in his business after lapse of such a long time. 7. The petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and hence, dismissed. JUDGE RR.