1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR M.C.A. NO. 546/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 21/2011 (D) (BALDEORAJ HARINAMDAS SAHANI VERSUS SMT. RAJKUMARI RATANLALJI LAHOTI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Sudame h/f Shri M.M. Sudame, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that since the page, on which the particular statement made by the petitioner’s son Kshitij, that in spite of search for an alternate accommodation, he was not able to trace it out appeared was inadvertently not annexed to the petition and in this background, the said evidence was not pointed out to this Court by the learned counsel for the parties nor was this Court able to read the same in the evidence of Kshitij. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that Kshitij had stated in his affidavit at Exhibit 64 that after the suit for eviction was filed, he searched for alternate accommodation but, did not find one. Hence, it is necessary to delete the following two sentences from the order dated 31.01.2011, which is sought to be reviewed. “Though the Courts have observed that the petitioner’s son Kshitij had stated in his affidavit 2 at Exh.64 that in spite of the search made by him to obtain an alternate accommodation for his business in the vicinity of the suit block, he was not able to trace out an alternate accommodation, the same observation seems to be incorrect as the learned counsel for the parties are not able to point out to this Court that indeed such a statement was made in the affidavit of Kshitij. Hence, in the absence of any statement to the aforesaid effect, there is all the m ore reason for holding that the comparative hardship, which would be caused to the landlady would be greater than the tenant as the tenant had not made any endeavour to find out alternate accommodation for carrying out the business in the same locality or any other nearby locality.” The necessary correction should be carried out at the earliest. The miscellaneous civil application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE