1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 321/2006 in Writ Petition No. 2340/94 (decided) Nawatan Udhaodas Gedwani ..vs.. The Additional Collector, Wardha and Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: K. J. ROHEE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. A. S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. T. A. Kankale, A.G.P. for resp. No. 1 and Mr. A.A.Naik, learned counsel for resp. Nos. 2 to 7. 2. The Rent Controller rejected the landlord's prayer about bonafide requirement of the shop premises in occupation of the appellant. The appellate Authority, however, held that the shop premises in occupation of the appellant were required by the landlords and that the landlords had established their bonafide need. The learned Single Judge also upheld the contention of the landlord in respect of the bonafide need for expansion of Kirana shop of the landlords located in the same premises adjacent to the shop in occupation of the appellant. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of 2 the present Letters Patent Appeal, the landlord purchased one plot and started construction thereon. He also purchased another house where he can shift his shop. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on judgment in Hasmat Rai and another ..vs.. Reghunath Prasad; AIR 1981 SC 1711, in which subsequent events are taken into consideration. 3. It may be noted that even before the learned Single Judge, the subsequent events were not brought on record by filing an affidavit. The submissions which were made, were considered by the learned Single Judge. The leaned Single Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter. 4. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE kahale