1 cra 99.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2011 Kachrulal S/o Bastimal Jain .. Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Ganpat Godsay .. Respondent Shri P. V. Mandalik, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. M. Godsay, Advocate h/f Shri S. D. Ghayal, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : . The present landlord had filed an application U/Sec. 15 of the Hyderabad Houses Rent (Eviction) Act 1954 for eviction on multiple grounds. The rent controller allowed the application of the landlord for eviction on the ground that the defendant is willful defaulter and the plaintiff requires the premises for bonafide need. Aggrieved thereby the tenant preferred an appeal before the District Court. The Principal District Judge, Beed dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction on the ground that 2 cra 99.11 the premises is required for the landlord for his bonafide use. 2. Shri P. V. Mandalik, the learned senior counsel submits that the District Court has not even framed the points for determination regarding the default. Even the District Judge has not considered the aspect of comparative hardship, nor has discussed the evidence in that regard. According to the learned counsel, the need as it existed on the date of application as submitted by the landlord did not exist as he stopped practicing. The premises cannot be used as office, at the most it can be only used as godown. 3. Per contra, Shri Godsay, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the landlord is the best judge of his need. Even an amendment was made in the petition raising the plea of need of the premises for his another son for running coaching class. The District Judge has taken into consideration all these aspects and has rightly dismissed the appeal. 4. As no point was framed regarding eviction on the ground of willful default, the same could not have been considered for eviction. The District Judge has discussed the bonafide need of 3 cra 99.11 the landlord in as much as the son needs the premises for running coaching class. The fact that the landlord has sons is not disputed and are capable to run the avocation. 5. It is a trite law that a landlord is the best judge of his cause, when it has been specifically pleaded and also evidence is led to that effect that the premises is required for the landlord for his personal and bonafide need of his son, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 6. As far as the contention that no issue regarding comparative hardship is framed, so no decree for eviction could have been passed is unfounded as the concept of comparative hardship is applicable only if the eviction is sought U/Sec. 15(3) (c) of the Hyderabad Houses Rent Eviction Control Act, the present eviction is not under the said clause. 7. In the light of above the civil revision application does not have any merit and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 8. Shri P. V. Mandalik, the learned senior counsel seeks some 4 cra 99.11 time to vacate the premises. Shri Godsay, the learned counsel submits that the possession is already taken at 12.00 O’clock in the noon. In view of said statement the request of Shri P. V. Mandalik, the learned senior counsel cannot be considered. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11