1 1 cra.214.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 214 OF 2010 Babu Jinappa Chhatre. ... Applicant Versus Ashok Yeshwant Chougule and another. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Applicant. Mr. Manoj Patil i/b Mr. A.B.Vagyani for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30 th November, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. 2 The Applicant is the Defendant in a suit filed by the Respondents. The suit relates to suit premises more particularly descried in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. The suit for eviction was filed on the ground that the Respondents require suit premises for bona fide and personal use. Another ground for eviction pleaded was nuisance and annoyance. The suit was contested by the Applicant by 2 1 cra.214.10 filing written statement. It must be noted here that in the plaint, the case made out is that the Respondents had let out a shop premises (suit premises) admeasuring 10’ x 20’. In the written statement, the Applicant contended that apart from the suit premises on the ground floor, he was in possession of two rooms on first floor and the eastern staircase as a tenant. The trial Court framed an issue even on this aspect. The trial Court upheld the ground of bona fide need and nuisance and annoyance. However, the trial Court negatived the contention that apart from the suit premises, the Applicant was the tenant of the premises on the first floor. An appeal was preferred by the Revision Applicant, which has been dismissed by the Appellate Court. 3 The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant is that the findings of the Courts below on Issue No.1-B as regards the extent of the suit premises is erroneous. The learned counsel submitted that the Courts below committed an error by relying upon a rent note, which was not admissible in evidence for want of 3 1 cra.214.10 registration. The learned counsel submitted that the ground of bona fide need was not established. The learned counsel submitted that the finding on the issue of bona fide need and hardship is erroneous. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The first contention is whether the Appellant was the tenant in respect of the premises on the first floor and eastern staircase. However, this aspect need not be gone into inasmuch as the issue has been concluded by the judgment and order dated 18 th August, 2005 passed by this Court in the Second Appeal No.529 of 2005 wherein the said contention of the Applicant has been negatived. It will be necessary to make a reference to the finding of the Courts below on the issue of bona fide requirement. The case made out by the original Plaintiff was that the suit premises was required for his personal use as he intended to start a business. The original Plaintiff has died during the pendency of the suit. The legal representatives of the original Plaintiff were brought on record. Thereafter, a case was made out by the Respondent No.3 (a son of the original Plaintiff) that he was desirous 4 1 cra.214.10 of starting a hardware shop and it was pointed out that the sons of the Respondent No.2 had taken training in the business who were intending to run the said hardware shop. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is that the sons of the Respondent No.2 were residing in their field and they needed the suit premises for starting hardware shop. The bona fide need of the sons of the Respondent No.2 has been accepted by the Courts below and there is no reason to disturb the said finding. As far as the issue of comparative hardship is concerned, the Appellate Court has noted the admission of the Applicant that he was having ½ share in ancestral house which was situated at at distance of 500 feet from the suit premises and that the said house was situated abutting the main road. The Appellate Court found that the Applicant has the financial capacity to run he business in his own house. 5 There is not reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recored on the issue of bona fide need and comparative hardship. It must be noted here that the decree has been passed only on in 5 1 cra.214.10 respect of the suit premises described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint though the case of the Applicant that some other part of the property was let out to him has been disbelieved. 6 No case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders. 7 The revision application is accordingly rejected. 8 The ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate for a period of twelve weeks from today. [ A.S.OKA, J ]