1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5758/2010 (M/s. Vallabhdas Madhaolal Parikh and Company and others - Vs. - Smt. Rukhmabai M. Sharma and others ) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.S.Jaiswal, counsel for petitioners Shri _Sharma, counsel for Respondents ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2010. This petition is preferred by the tenant challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. The respondent-landlord has proved his bonafide need in respect of the shop premises, which is Shop Block NO.2, situated at ground floor of Municipal Corporation House NO. 39, constructed on Plot No. 40, situated in Gandibagh, Panchpaoli Road, Central Avenue, Nagpur. 2] Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged, relying upon the portion of 2 cross-examination of Manish, one of the plaintiff, that some property has been purchased as per the sale deed dated 30th March, 1984 and this fact has been suppressed. In the Income Tax return at Exh. 63 filed as on 31.3.2008, the purchase of the shop premises has been shown. He further submits that the trial court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and the appellate court has committed an error in recording the finding that just because shop purchased is shown in Income Tax return, would not imply that the shop premises is available. He submits that it is the burden upon the landlord to point out as to what premises were available with him on the date of filing of the application and how the same were being utilized. Once it is shown that some other premises are available in addition to the premises disclosed in the suit by the landlord, then the burden shifts upon the landlord to establish or explain the nature of premises and its available. 3] The sale deed dated 30th March 1984 at Exh.22 is produced on record. The property described in the schedule is the same property which is described in 3 para 1 of the plaint. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord submits that it is the same premises in respect of which the bonafide need is put forth by the landlord. He submits that it is for the tenant to bring on record the material to show that some other premises were available and were in fact in possession of the landlord, when proceedings were instituted. 4] The appellate Court has considered the aspect and has recorded the finding that there are no material details given in regard to the shop alleged to have been purchased by the landlord. Perusal of the schedule of the suit property in the sale deed Exh. 22 shows that the property described in para 1 of the plaint is the same. Simply because there are some stray entries in the return filed before the Income Tax Authorities about the purchase of some shop, the same is not enough to shift the burden upon the landlord to establish as to what premises he has purchased. The appellate Court has rightly held that no details have been shown and the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any other material on record to substantiate his plea. 4 5] In view of above, no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the courts below. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 6] Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the appeal an undertaking was furnished by the landlord that if the appeal is expeditiously heard then they shall not take any steps to execute the decree. He further seeks that the same undertaking be continue for further period of four weeks. Shri sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that two weeks time would be reasonable. However, keeping in view the fact that the decree is not yet executed, it is directed that the same shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today, after expiry of which the interim arrangement shall stand automatically vacated, without reference to the Court and the plaintiff-landlord shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution. JUDGE Rvjalit