1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2132/2011 (NAWALKISHORE SHANKARLAL CHANDAK & OTHERS VERSUS RAMCHANDRA SAKHARAM MAHAJAN) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.M. Sharma, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners challenge the concurrent judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court holding that the respondent-landlord was entitled to possession of the suit property as the petitioners had not used the premises continuously for a period of more than six months preceding the date of institution of the suit and the respondent-landlord requires the suit premises for the bona fide occupation. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Courts rejected the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the premises in question fell within the slum area and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent to have obtained the permission from the competent authority before institution of the suit. Both the Courts concurrently held on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record that the premises were not being used continuously for a period of more than six 2 months by the petitioners and the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction as the respondent was running a hotel and was intending to expand his business for running a restaurant. While holding that the landlord was entitled to possession on the ground of bona fide need, both the Courts further held that the comparative hardship, which would be caused to the landlord, would have been greater than the tenants, had the suit not been decreed in favour of the landlord. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The findings do not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE