1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2760/2011 (SUNIL R. JAIN VERSUS ANIL D. ROKDE & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.R. Kalariya, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondents-landlords were entitled to the possession of the suit property under the provisions of Section 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Order. The first appellate Court rightly observed that the defendant-petitioner had not paid the entire arrears of rent along with 15% interest within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. In this view of the matter, the first appellate Court held that the landlords were entitled to the possession of the suit property under the provisions of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Both the Courts concurrently found that the landlords bona fide needed the suit premises for the business purpose as they intended to start a Cloth Shop in the premises in question. The finding recorded by both the Courts in regard to the bona fide need of the landlords is a pure finding of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The finding 2 in regard to the need of the landlords to occupy the premises calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The Courts further found that the hardship, which would be caused to the landlords would be greater than the hardship, which would be caused to the tenant in case the suit is decreed against him. The Courts found that the tenant had not searched for another accommodation in spite of the fact that the proceedings were instituted by the landlords against the tenant under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are based on the proper appreciation of the material on record, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed as such with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE