1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2011 Subhash Ramkuwar Baheti and ors. Vs. Smt. Ratnabai Gopaldasji Kabra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.N. Mohta, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Chhabra, Adv. for the respondent sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 3 rd October, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the trial court and the first appellate court directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the respondent as the respondent had proved that the respondent required the suit premises for her bonafide occupation and the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent. The suit property originally belonged to one Ramprasad who expired in the year 1974. The daughter of Ramprasad had predeceased Ramprasad. One Rajaram claimed to be an adopted son of Ramprasad and respondent Ratnabai claimed to have purchased the suit property from Rajaram, the adopted son of Ramprasad. After purchasing the property, Ratnabai instituted the suit for possession on the ground that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter and was in arrears of rent and the plaintiff also required the suit premises for her bonafide occupation. The trial court and first appellate court, on an appreciation of evidence on record, came to a conclusion that Rajaram was the adopted son of Ramprasad and plaintiff Ratnabai 2 had proved her ownership over the suit property as she had purchased the same by a registered sale deed from Rajaram. Both the Courts came to a conclusion that Ratnabai required the suit premises for her bonafide occupation. The judgments passed by the courts are impugned by the instant petition. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that both the courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings of fact to the effect that Rajaram was the adopted son of Ramprasad and Ratnabai, the landlady, required the suit premises for her personal need. The courts rightly considered the evidence of the son of Ratnabai, along with the other evidence on record, to hold that Ratnabai required the suit premises for business purpose. The court considered the fact that the northern side of the suit premises was in occupation of the plaintiff since long and since she wanted to extend her business, it could not be said that her need was not genuine. The court found that the plaintiff had every right to secure possession of the suit premises for bonafide occupation. The court also found that greater hardship would be caused to the landlady in case her suit was not decreed. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the son of the landlady could not have deposed on behalf of the landlady as the fact about the requirement of need of the landlady would have been in her personal knowledge is liable to be rejected as the power of attorney in this case was the son of the landlady and he could have very well deposed about the need or requirement of the landlady who was in possession of the adjacent shop and wanted to extend her business. The judgment reported in AIR 1981 Bombay 1 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In fact, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1999 SC 3089 that it is 3 not essential that landlord should enter the witness box in support of his case as bonafide requirement is not the fact which could be established only by the landlord. Similar view has been expressed by this court in the judgments reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 253 and 2005(4) Bombay Cases Reporter 554. The finding recorded by both the courts on the issue of adoption of Rajaram by Ramprasad is also a pure finding of fact which calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is necessary to note that no relative of Ramprasad was challenging the title of Rajaram to the suit property and it was the petitioner/tenant who challenged the same. Moreover, the petitioner paid rent for a few months to Rajaram and this clearly showed that the petitioner had accepted Rajaram as the owner of the property. Be that as it may, since the finding recorded by both the courts on this issue is neither illegal nor perverse, there is no reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan