1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5550 OF 2010. Dr. Mohan Hanumantrao Adyalkar. .Vrs. Vasantrao Bhouji Varatkar and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Nemade,Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2) -0-0- CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 11 th July, 2011. The above petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 13th January, 2010 passed by the Additional collector, Wardha, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, dated 07th October, 2005 came to be confirmed and thereby the respondent herein was permitted to give an eviction notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is in occupation of the property in question since the year 1984-85 on monthly rent of Rs. 225/-. The petitioner is running a 2 dispensary in the said tenanted premises. The respondents herein had purchased the property in question, wherein the tented premises are situated, on 02.05.1990 from the original owner one Smt. Sushila Jadhav. The respondents thereafter filed an application under Clause 13(3) (v),(vi)(vii) and (viii) of the C.P. and Berar Rent Control order against the petitioner before the Rent Controller. The said application came to be numbered as Rent Control Application No 188/71-2/90-91. The said rent control proceedings came to be dismissed in default on 25.07.1995. It appears that the restoration application filed by the respondents was also rejected on 31.08.1995. The respondents thereafter on 05.10.1995 filed the second application for the selfsame purpose for being permitted to issue an eviction notice to the petitioner and inter alia on the same ground. By an order dated 07.10.2005, the Rent Controller, Wardha allowed the application of the respondents and granted them permission to issue a quit notice against the petitioner. The said permission was inter alia sought on various grounds. What has weighted with the Rent Controller as can be seen in the order passed 3 by him was that the respondent is in bonafide requirement of the premises for the business which his son wanted to establish in building material. Being aggrieved by the said order, dated 07.10.2005 passed by the Rent Controller the petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal before the Additional Collector, Wardha. In the said Appeal it was the case of the petitioner that in view of the earlier application filed by the respondent which has dismissed, it was not open for the respondent to file a fresh application. It was further contended that the respondents had other premises in the same building wherein the son of the respondent is carrying on his business. The said Appeal was heard by the Additional Collector, Wardha and by the impugned order dated 13.05.2010, dismissed the same. Whilst dismissing the said appeal the Additional Collector confirmed the findings of the Rent controller in so far as the bonafide need of the respondent is concerned. The Additional Collector inter alia held that the petitioner was not able to prove that the board which the respondent had put up for the purpose of letting out rooms is related to the rooms on the ground floor. The Additional Collector held that the petitioner has his well 4 equipped nursing home by the side of the structure of the tenanted premises and therefore if the petitioner is evicted no hardship would be caused to him. Having considered the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Additional Collector in Appeal, in my view the findings recorded by both the authorities in the context of the bonafide need of the respondents on the basis of the evidence on record cannot be faulted with. There is no irregularity or infirmity in the orders passed. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE scd//