1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.77/2009 APPLICANT :- Shri Puranmal s/o Hiranand Khetwani, Aged – Major, Occu – Proprietor, Bombay Boot House, R/o Jawahar Road, Amravati (Maharashtra State). ...Versus... RESPONDENT :- Shri Harish Kumar s/o Fatechand Munot (Jain), Aged – Major, R/o Jawahar Niwas, Badnera Road, Amravati (Maharashtra State). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri Khare, Adv. for applicant-petitioner] [S.V. Manohar with Shri M.A. Kadu, Advs. for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 16.10.2009 1. This civil revision application is directed against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court holding that the respondent – plaintiff had made out a case for a decree of eviction of tenant for bonafide occupation of the suit shop and therefore, the suit came to be decreed against the petitioner – tenant. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner – tenant argued that respondent – plaintiff is admittedly having residential house at Amravati. He then argued that the suit premises 2 is only 300 sq. ft. wherein the petitioner – tenant has been running his shop from the year 1951 and looking to the nature of business run by the petitioner – tenant, namely, sale of shoes, the Court below ought to have given serious attention to the comparative hardship which would be suffered by the petitioner – tenant as against respondent – landlord who admittedly is having offices at various places in the country. He then argued that the respondent – plaintiff should carry on his business which he proposes to do in Amravati from his residential premises as the nature of business is of Information Technology and therefore, in strict sense respondent does not need the premises much less for bonafide occupation. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent – landlord vehemently opposed the revision and argued that the respondent – landlord wants to undertake his business at Amravati and admittedly respondent – plaintiff does not own any other shop premises in market area. It may be true that the respondent – plaintiff owns a residential premises in Amravati but the petitioner – tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to where he should locate his business. As a matter of fact the respondent – plaintiff wants to open his head office at Amravati and though space of 300 sq. ft. is less, looking to the nature of business of Information Technology much space is not required. What is important is the market area where the respondent – plaintiff wants to put his business. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision application. 3 4. It is seen that the respondent is aged about 70 years and his case is that he wants come back now to motherland and to run his business at Amravati. It further seems that he does have some offices in the country at the places like Bangalore and Hyderabad and now he wants to open head office at Amravati. Disagreeing with the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent – plaintiff should carry on his business from his residential premises, I find in the first place that the respondent – plaintiff wants to have his head office at Amravati and that too in market area in order to promote his business and no fault can be found out with the thinking of the respondent – landlord since one would choose a place in the market area so that the services are easily accessible. The customers would not accede to go to the residential place of respondent – landlord for obtaining necessary services. Therefore, looking to the convenience of the respondent – landlord as well as customers, I do not think that the Courts below have committed any error in granting eviction decree in question. As regards comparative hardship projected by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the respondent – landlord admittedly does not have any shop premises and the office premises in the market area of Amravati. If the comparative hardship projected by learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted then the Court will have to deprive respondent – landlord of his right to have shop/office in Amravati. That would be obviously in violation of his right to do so. Therefore, 4 comparative hardship in this background will have to be viewed and consequently, the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner will have to be rejected. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition nor it is necessary to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for six months' time to vacate the premises. Request is reasonable in view of the long stay of the petitioner in the shop from 1951. Hence, I grant six months' time to the applicant – petitioner to vacate the premises upon furnishing usual undertaking to this Court in the present matter. JUDGE ssw