1 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2010 1. Aboodbin Amar Billamar, s/o Amar Bin Abood Billamar, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, r/o Manzoorpura, Aurangabad. 2. Faisal Bin Amar Billamar, s/o. Amar Bin Abood Billamar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, r/o. Manzoorpura, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS (Org.Defendants) VERSUS Syed Mohammed Iftekhar Ahmed, s/o. Ehtesham Ahmed Razzaqui, Age 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Razzaqui Manzil, Manzoorpura, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Plaintiff) ... Mr.Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. A.D.Kasliwal, Adv., for respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:15/12/2010 *** 2 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. By order dt.20th Sept.,2010, it was indicated to hear the matter finally. Paper Book is tendered by the learned Counsel for the revisional applicant. 2. This is tenant's revision, challenging the order of the first appellate Court recording eviction from a commercial premises, upsetting the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. 3. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the tenant is, the pleadings and particularly, the verification clause of the plaint is not in tune to Order 6 Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord has six vacant shops, as he owns 14 shops. The expansion of the business that the landlord desires is outside the scope of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as Rent Act). The tenant has no other premises. One more litigation is initiated by the landlord for evicting another tenant, which explicitly illustrate that the landlord would be getting another premises. There is no bona fide need to the landlord. Learned Counsel for the revisional applicant, thoroughly read evidence of the landlord, the tenant and also both the judgments. 3 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 He criticized, the first appellate Court, relying the reported judgments, already negated by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. According to him, this exercise is not legally contemplated. 4. The status of the parties is not in controversy. The landlord's business is in Shahgunj Area, Aurangabad, with area of 8 ft. x 10 fts, at first floor on rent. It may be that the landlord has a good yield of the business at the said place, however, he need not be forced to occupy the said premises when he has a well knit premises in ideally commercial atmosphere on ground floor admeasuring 10 fts. x 20 fts. in occupation of Tenant/Revisional applicant. The contention that the tenant has no other premises may be correct but no efforts in past are made by the tenant to search for alternate premises. 5. The contention that the landlord has 14 shops or 6 shops, is illusory. The learned Court of first instance, without any authenticity of the same, in evidence, relied such assertion and created a confusion. This mistake has been rightly corrected by the first appellate Court. Reading of evidence in revision by the learned Counsel, though not desired, however, considering the nature of the controversy, it was permitted and I confirm that there is no evidence that the 4 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 landlord owns 14 shops or 6 shops are vacant. 6. The other litigation is not by the landlord but it is a premises required by his brother, who is a landlord thereof. Though such eviction proceedings are filed by the present landlord but, it is in the form of General Power of Attorney. It is curious, both the sides did not advert to proof or disproof that the said eviction proceeding ( No.13/2005) was the premises owned by the present respondent/landlord. 7. The other assertion that the pleadings are not properly verified, has been dealt with in proper appreciation by the learned first appellate Court. I do not need to comment and castigate the same. 8. The mistake committed by the Court of first instance, in misdirecting itself to the reported judgments, was required to be corrected. He was swayed either with head-notes or with his own notions of law. There is no grievance that the premises admeasuring 10 fts x 20 fts. was let out to the revisional applicant at the monthly rent of Rs.550/-. The landlord's business at the tenanted premises in the area of 8 fts x 10 fts at the first floor even if flourishing that will not generate into tenant's 5 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 contention to allow him to occupy in the premises owned by the landlord. The landlord's need to stay in his premises, occupy his premises is paramount, it is not within the realms of the Court or tenant to dictate, in what fashion the landlord should carry on his business activities. 9. The contention that there is infraction of Section 16(1)(g) of the Rent Act, though is accelerated, however, on evaluation of the evidence adduced and the discussion of the several points by the first appellate Court, I find, there is no error on the part of the first appellate Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the landlord has relied to the judgment in the matter of Uday Shankar Upadhyay and others Vs. Naveen Maheshwari ( (2010) 1 SCC 503) wherein the Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court observed, once it is not disputed that landlord is in bona fide need of premises, it is not for the Courts to see that he should shift to first floor or any higher floor. It is well known that shops and businesses usually conducted on the ground floor as customers can reach easily, the Court cannot dictate to the landlord, which floor he should use for his business, it is for the landlord himself to decide. The pleadings and evidence, in unmistakable terms, illustrated that the need 6 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 of the landlord is bona fide, not on whims and fancies, to evict the tenant under any pretext. The landlord has no other premises which can be used for his personal use, for carrying business activities and the premises where he is carrying business being of 8 fts x 10 fts and that too, rented, the suggestion that the landlord should continue in the rented premises, is not feasible, to be accepted and, need not be so directed by this Court. 11. The survey of above facts illustrate, the revision does not project any illegality on the part of the learned first appellate Court in recording the decree of eviction. Civil Revision Application dismissed with costs. 12. Heard Mr.Mustafa and Mr.Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the respective parties. Mr.Mustafa, on instructions, informs that, his client desires to challenge the order, however, if he is allowed to continue for a period of one year, it will resolve the difficulties of the revisional applicant. The request is just. The revisional applicant tenant to vacate the premises on or before 31st Dec.,2011 on the condition that he will be making regular remittances of the rent, 7 CIV.R.A.NO.125 OF 2010 shall not part with the premises nor create third party interests. The revisional applicant shall give an undertaking to this Court to the above effect within 15 days from today. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/125-10cra