(1) WP. 4953.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4953 OF 2010 Ashok S/o Narayan Waghmare .. Petitioner VERSUS Atul S/o Diliprao Kulkarni .. Respondent Ms. S.D. Tambat Dhumal, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. J.C. Badve, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 21ST JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. There are concurrent findings against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to vacate the suit premises and counsel for the petitioner seeks time. 2] On hearing the counsel for the parties, it is amply clear that the relationship between the parties as tenant and landlord is duly proved. The trial Court and the appellate Court held that the landlord requires the suit premises for bonafide purpose in order to expand the business. The Courts below have further noticed that the petitioner failed to prove that requirement was sought with oblique motive. So, considering settled legal position which (2) WP. 4953.2010 is discussed by the Courts below, eviction decree came to be granted. There appears no perversity or arbitrariness noticed on evaluation of the evidence and on consideration of the reasons ascribed by the Courts below. The Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. The Petition is dismissed. 3] The counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate. Eight (8) months time is granted in the interest of justice. The petitioner shall evict the suit premises within a period of 8 months and the period of such concession will start running from 1.7.2010. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he will vacate the suit premises. The undertaking to be filed within a period of 4 weeks. No costs. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp