1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 193 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4697 OF 2008 (Arvind Giridharrao Jirapure & Anr. vs. Suresh Pandurangji Jirapure) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 18, 2009. Heard Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent filed application for permission to issue quit notice under clause 13(3) (i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi) and (ix) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, on the ground that the appellants were in arrears of rent and that the appellants were habitual defaulters in payment of rent; that they have sub-let the portion of the premises; that the respondent needed the premises for bonafide occupation and also on the ground that the appellants have committed an act of nuisance. The Rent Controller, Yavatmal, by order dated 5.12.2005 granted permission to the respondent under clause 13(3) (i), (ii), (v) and (vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal 2 before the Collector/ Additional Collector, Yavatmal. By order dated 16.7.2008, the Collector, Yavatmal, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller granting permission in respect of clause 13(3) (ii), (v) and (vi), and the permission under clause 13(3) (iii) and (ix) was also granted in favour of the respondent, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent. The appeal preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court which by judgment dated 25.11.2008 was partly allowed and the permission under clause 13(3) (vi) only was granted to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there were no appropriate pleadings in original application filed by the respondent by giving necessary particulars to claim permission to issue quit notice under the provisions of clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, with regard to the need of bonafide occupation. It is further his contention that in view of lack of such pleadings, the appellants were unable to defend the proceedings adequately which resulted in 3 miscarriage of justice to the appellants. It is further his submission that as such the impugned order granting permission to issue quit notice deserves to be set aside. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusing the records, we find that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment. In the application filed by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant, they had inter alia stated that the respondent wanted to start the business of sale of cloth in the shop and the room on its rear side as the said property is located in the commercial area and was suitable for the business of the respondent and that the respondent has no other suitable shop or room convenient for the business. During the course of the evidence adduced by the parties, the appellants have not been in a position to establish that the respondent was occupying any other house of his own in the city or town concerned. Having failed to establish that the respondent was occupying any other house of his own, the question of now contending that there was any lack of pleadings on the part of the respondent which resulted in any injustice to the appellants does not arise at all. In fact, such contention was not even 4 raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. On perusal of the order passed by the Collector, in the appeal preferred by the appellants, it is held that the appellants/ tenants have not proved that the landlord has an alternative sufficient and suitable accommodation to run the business. Apart from that what is required is that the material facts are to be incorporated in the pleadings so that the other side is aware of the facts which are sought to be advanced against him. In the present case, there were sufficient pleadings in the original application filed by the respondent to the effect that the respondent required the premises for the bonafide occupation to start his own business. The authorities below have given concurrent findings of fact with regard to the need of the respondent for his bonafide occupation. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj, reported at (2008) 9 SCC 1, it has been held inter alia that a finding as to the bonafide requirement for doing business having been recorded by the appellate authority, such finding was a finding of fact which can neither be interfered with nor set aside by the writ court. As such, the 5 learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment thereby dismissing writ petition filed by the appellants as the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below were not shown to be perverse in any manner. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any perversity in the judgment passed by the authorities below while disposing of the application filed by the respondent. As such, there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.