1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5123 OF 2010 (VILAS NAMDEORAO PAWADE...VS.. JAGDISH M. CHOUDHARI & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.A.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Khati, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Ambrish Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondents No.7 & 8. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioner impugns the concurrent judgments passed by the trial and first appellate Court decreeing the suit of the respondents/ landlords under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and holding that the respondents/ landlords were entitled to recover possession of the suit premises from the petitioners. The respondents claimed to be the owners of the house and the premises consisting of one shop block was occupied by the petitioner for business purposes. It was the case of the landlords that the petitioner-tenant was irregular in payment of rent and the arrears of rent were due and payable till 01.12.1990. It was also the case of the landlords that the daughter of plaintiff No.1 Jagdishprasad by name Mona was taking education in Homeopathy College and was studying in B.H.M.S. degree course. It was the case of the landlords that after passing B.H.M.S. Examination, Mona 2 wanted to start dispensary in the suit block which was occupied by the petitioners. It was the case of the landlords that there was no other suitable accommodation available to the respondents for the dispensary. The petitioner denied the claim of the landlord and also denied that they were in arrears of the rent. It was denied by the petitioner that the suit premises was bonafide required by the respondents for starting dispensary for Mona after securing B.H.M.S. degree. The petitioner sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court and the first appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that they required the suit premises bonafide for establishing a dispensary for Mona, daughter of plaintiff No.1 Jagdishprasad. The Courts considered that at the relevant time, in the year 2007-2008, Mona was studying in final year of BHMS degree course. The Courts held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the plaintiffs desired to settle the daughter of Jagdishprasad after passing BHMS examination. The Courts found that there was nothing on record to show that there was any other alternate accommodation which was more suitable for starting the dispensary for plaintiff No.1's daughter Mona. The Courts considered the evidence of the defendant in his cross-examination which disclosed that he was ignorant about the fact that the daughter of plaintiff No.1 was studying in third/final year of BHMS degree course. On reading of the evidence on record, the Courts held that the daughter of the plaintiff No.1 required the suit premises for starting a dispensary. There was nothing in the cross-examination of 3 Mona, who was also examined before the trial Court to show that there was any other suitable accommodation for starting the dispensary in the house owned by her grandfather in the square which was near the house which was occupied by the plaintiffs No.1 to 3. In fact, the petitioner did not even give a suggestion to Mona that there was a suitable alternate accommodation available for Mona to start the dispensary. Both the Courts also held that 'comparative hardship' which would be suffered by the landlords would be greater than the hardship which could be suffered by the petitioner in this case. The Courts held that there was no pleading in the written statement in regard to 'comparative hardship'. In absence of any pleading, the Court considered the surrounding facts and circumstances to hold that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if a decree of eviction was not passed in favour of the plaintiff in this case as there was no other accommodation for Mona to start a dispensary after passing the BHMS examination. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record. These findings cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..