wp5419.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5419/2011 Nandkishor Laxminarayan Sharma -vs- Smt.Janabai Ashok Nagargoje and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Bhalerao, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 21.11.2011. Heard. The judgment passed by both the courts are challenged by the petitioner on two grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that the trial Court had not framed the issue about comparative hardship under Section 16 (2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and hence, the judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioner that certain subsequent developments have not been considered by the Courts while granting the relief of possession in favour of the respondents. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time when the suit was filed the children of the respondent No.1 were taking education at Yavatmal but later on when the matter was decided they had completed their education and hence, the suit ought to have been dismissed. wp5419.11.odt 2/3 The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected as though no specific issue in regard to comparative hardship was framed by the trial Court, that aspect was argued by the parties, specially the petitioner and that aspect has been considered in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the judgment of the trial Court. The facts of the case were considered by the trial Court before holding that the need of the respondents was reasonable and bona fide. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner about greater hardship to the petitioner as there was no other house for him to reside at Yavatmal was also considered by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court rightly considered this aspect of the matter and held that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be branded as illegal merely because the issue of comparative hardship was not actually framed, as indeed this issue was considered though not framed, in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the trial Court's judgment. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner about the absence of bona fide need in view of the subsequent developments is also liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the respondents owned only the suit house at Yavatmal and they were required to reside at village Dorli as the suit premises were in occupation of the petitioner. Even assuming that the children of the respondent No.1 had completed their education during the pendency of the proceedings, it cannot be said that the need of the respondents wp5419.11.odt 3/3 did not subsist as the suit house was the only house belonging to the respondents in Yavatmal Town and the respondents were required to reside in a small village as the house was in occupation of the petitioner. The findings of facts recorded by both the Courts are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE