1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W. P. No. 4820 of 2007. [Smt. Annapurnabai wd/o Sitaramji Sathe] Vs. [Smt. Rangoobai W/o Santoshrao Kangale] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri MY Wadodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram: A. H. JOSHI, J. Dated: 16th January 2008. 1. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent - landlord for eviction under the provisions of Rent Act. 2. The eviction is sought on two grounds namely:- (i) willful default; and (ii) bonafide reasonable personal requirement. 3. In so far as the ground of default is concerned, the case proceeds 2 on admitted fact namely: (a) the tenant petitioner claims that the rent was paid to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff  present respondent admittedly, on the face of fact of notice of attornment was served on the petitioner. (b) The decree of payment of rent was passed against the petitioner, and the petitioner has satisfied the said decree. 4. In so far as the ground of bonafide reasonable personal requirement is concerned, both the Courts have concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff  respondent. 5. The petitioner disputes the ground of bonafide personal requirement indicating to Exh.94 & 95, which are the title documents of properties owned by the sons of the plaintiff  respondent. Learned First Appellate Court has given due consideration to 3 this aspect, and has found that one amongst the properties is the open plot, and cannot be a house available for occupation, and as far as another property is concerned, it is outside the Municipal limits and the Gram Panchayat area. 6. In so far as the aspect of comparative hardship is concerned, the petitioner tenant has left the issue substantially to speculation, and the tenant has failed to prove any ground suggesting how hardship to the tenant was more than one which would be suffered by the landlord, if the decree of eviction is passed. 7. In these premises, the Judgment and decree as passed by the Trial Court, and as confirmed by the First Appellate Court is challenged. 8. It is not shown that the impugned Judgment and decree is contrary to any material on record or 4 that the findings are perverse or vitiated due to illegality. 9. Therefore, no interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Wadodkar prays for two months time for eviction. 11. Heard. 12. Time is granted on following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall deposit within three weeks the entire arrears of rent if any. (2) The petitioner shall file an undertaking on affidavit that :- (a) in the intervening period, no third party will be entertained in the property; (b) the petitioner is in possession of the suit property; and (c) the possession of suit property will be delivered without any grudge or demur, voluntarily or without the decree holder being required to 5 file the execution proceedings after completing 2 months. (3) Undertaking be filed within one week. (4) Writ of stay for two months be issued if undertaking is filed. JUDGE Sbm