1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.588 OF 2011 (ANIL CHANDRAKANT DESHMUKH...VS..YOGENDRA BAIJNATH GUPTA.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. An unsuccessful tenant challenges the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court holding that the landlord was entitled to seek possession of the suit premises under Section 15 and 16 (1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the judgment it is clear that both the Courts were justified in holding that the petitioner was a defaulter in making the payment of rent and the landlord was entitled to seek possession under Section 15 of the Act. It is necessary to note that though the petitioner had received the notice issued by the landlord under Section 15 of the Act of 1999, the petitioner failed to pay the rent to the landlord within a period of 90 days therefrom. The petitioner also did not pay the entire rent due and payable within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the summons. Both the Courts have concurrently recorded these findings. The findings being 2 pure findings of facts need no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 4. As regards the issue of bonafide need, both the Courts held that the landlord requires the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. The landlord wanted to start a business of edible oil and mini expeller in the suit premises and the adjoining plot. Though the landlord had obtained possession of one of the shops during the pendency of the suit the said shop was utilized by the landlord for running a hotel. The landlord required the suit premises for installing the oil expeller. The premises which were available to the landlord at the back side of his house were not sufficient to run the business of edible oil and mini expeller. The suit premises were adjoining to the open space on the rear side and hence, the suit premises were convenient for the landlord for starting this business. 5. The Courts rightly found that the hardship which would be caused to the landlord would be greater than the hardship which would be caused to the tenant in case the suit was not decreed as it was admitted that the petitioner had purchased a shop adjoining to the suit shop in the name of his minor son. The Courts held that in such circumstances, there was no question of any damage being caused to the goodwill of the petitioner. 6. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent/ landlord is not the owner of the property is not well-founded as admittedly the petitioner had taken the suit premises on lease from one Rukhminibai and the respondent is the son of Rukhminibai. Though the 3 respondent had not produced the will dated 11.06.1999 by which he claimed to have acquired the suit property by the bequest made by his mother, the Courts found that the petitioner had paid rent of Rs.7,000/- by way of cheque to the respondent and had attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent. In any case, the according to the Courts, the respondent became the co-owner of the suit shop along with other heirs after the death of his mother and hence, he was entitled to file a suit for eviction against the petitioner. Moreover, Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1999 speak of contingencies in which the 'landlord' may recover the possession and the term 'landlord', as defined in Section 7(3) of the Act of 1999 means, any person who is for the time being receiving or entitled to receive rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person. The definition of the term ‘Landlord’ under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1999 is wide enough and definitely includes the respondent. Hence, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent could not have instituted the proceedings against the petitioner is ill-founded and is liable to be rejected. The Courts rightly held that the respondent had produced sufficient evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner and the petitioner had also admitted in his cross-examination that he has remitted the rent to the respondent by accepting him as his landlord and as such there was surely an attornment of the tenancy in favour of the respondent. 7. The findings on the issues of 'bonafide need' and 'comparative hardship' are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. They need no 4 interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the res lt, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order a to costs. JUDGE RR..