1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3992 OF 2008 (Bhanudas Babarao Choudhary vs. Madhukar Sadashivrao Dharmthok) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent. It is apparent that after considering evidence on record, a concurrent finding that respondent – landlord needed the premises for bonafide need has been reached. Shri Patil, learned counsel has tried to show that the respondent wants to give one room to each of his married daughters. The need is also considered by both Courts and found to be established. Therefore, there cannot be anything wrong with the respondent – landlord providing a room each to his married daughter. The contention is that the premises are sought to be used for commercial purpose. The consideration of aspect by the lower appellate Court 2 does not reveal that the entire premises as such are being put to commercial purpose. The respondent – landlord is also having his residence in the very same structure. Even if there is any violation of Section 30 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the petitioner is free to point out the violation before the Competent Authority and seek relief as he may be entitled in law. In this matter, I do not find any failure in exercise of jurisdiction or perversity so as to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.