1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4645/2009. ( Gopal P.Khapre -: versus :- The Additional Collector and another ) 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 : FEBRUARY 09, 2010. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri N.A. Vyawahare, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Permission under clause 13[3][vi] of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 granted by the Rent Controller to respondent no.2 has been maintained by the Appellate Authority and these concurrent findings are challenged in the present Writ Petition by the petitioner/tenant. First contention is, the need given in application before the Rent Controller was of husband to start a general stores, while wife entered the witness box and deposed that she would run a cosmetic business or stationery business. Those inconsistencies have not been properly appreciated either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Court. The second contention is, tenanted premises ad-measuring 10 x 2 10 feet are in Modi Lane No.2, while bigger premises in Modi lane no.1 have been subsequently vacated by the tenant and are available to respondent no.2. Though these facts are pointed out to the Rent Controller in his evidence by petitioner, that has not been considered and though a specific ground was raised about it before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority again has ignored it. In support of this contention, reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2009 [13] Scale 454 (Mohd. Ismail .vrs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar). The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has supported the impugned order and contended that there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. He has invited attention of the court to both the orders. He further states that availability of other accommodation in Modi lane no.1 was not brought on record as subsequent event, in accordance with the law and hence respondent no.2 has not been given any opportunity to explain the situation. He states that Modi lane no.2 is commercial area, while modi lane no.1 does not have that much commercial potential. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the judgment as well as the evidence. It is no doubt true that the application disclose that applicant – Anil wanted to start a general store business and he did not enter the witness box, but his wife Sandhya deposed that she can do business of stationery and cosmetics in suit premises. She has also deposed that necessary funds were available with her. She has further stated that she and her husband both together can cake care of business. At the end of her 3 deposition, she has again reiterated that she wanted to start stationery business. Her evidence also shows that there were grown up daughters in the family and family had no source of income. In cross examination it has been brought on record that she was working in Rajaram Library. The Rent Controller has found that, that her service was with some private concern and family had no dependable source of income. In that view of the matter, after considering the evidence the permission has been granted. It is therefore apparent that the evidence that family wanted to have some business in suit premises has come on record and that need was also pleaded. In this situation merely because husband did not enter witness box or then wife has stated that she would start business that by itself cannot be used to urge lack of bonafides. The vacation of other premises in modi lane no.1 by Brooke bond company has been brought on record by petitioner / tenant in his examination in chief. However, he has not put any question in relation thereto, to the respondent in her cross examination. No amendment was sought to urge that need as pleaded has been extinguished. The law on the point of bringing such subsequent events on record is well settled and no steps on those lines are taken by the petitioners. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court on which reliance has been placed shows that there was a remand for looking into those subsequent events specifically by the High Court, and the observations therefore need to be construed in that background. It appears that by moving an application subsequent events were brought on record before the Rent 4 Controller. In present matter except for deposing abut the subsequent event in his examination in chief, the petitioner / tenant has not taken any positive steps. The effort therefore seems to some how delay the disposal of the matter. I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.