1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITITION NO: 3761/2007 (Umeshchandra Agrawal vs. Smt. Pushpabai wd/o Laxmikant Tekade and others) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI , J. DATED: 28TH JANUARY, 2008. *** Heard Mr. R.L.Khapre, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Panpalia, for Respondent no.5. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, amendment is allowed. The petitioner to carry out amendment during the course of the day. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the concurrent finding of facts arrived by at the learned Civil Judge JD Telhara in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2002, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, for eviction and possession and the order passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Akot in Reg. Civil Appeal No.139/2005, RCA 141/2005 RCA 154/2005 & RCA No. No.155/2005 thereby dismissing RCA No. 139/2005; 154/2005; 155/2005 and allowing 2 RCA No. 141/2005. Four suits were filed by the parties to the present proceedings. Two were filed by the present petitioner and two were filed by respondent/tenant. 4. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit house. The plaintiff filed RCS No.3/2002 for eviction on the ground of the defendant /tenant being a defaulter, the suit premises being dilapidated and requires demolition, and bona fide need of the plaintiff. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner/ tenant was not a defaulter. However it came to a finding that the suit premises were dilapidated and requires demolition. It was also found that the defendant/ tenant without plaintiff's consent had started major repairs in the suit premises. In so far as the bona fide need is concerned, the learned trial Court came to a finding that the suit premises along with the adjacent plot were required for running business for the son of the petitioner. Accordingly, decree for eviction came to be passed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner went in an appeal. The appeals were also dimissed. Hence the present petition. 5. Shri Khapre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner -tenant, submits that both the Courts below have grossly erred in passing the decree on the ground of bona fide need. He submits that respondent 3 landlord was having an adjacent piece of land which could very well be utilised for construction of the shop wherein the landlord's son could carry out his business. He submits that this has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. He further submits that in so far as the comparative hardship is concerned, the same was not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. He further submits that subsequently i.e. On 18th July 2007 one more shop owned by the landlord has fallen vacant and as such, bona fide need is no more in existence. 6. Both the trial as well as Appellate Court after taking into consideration the material on record have come to the concurrent finding of fact that the bona fide need of the landlord for running business of the landlord's son has been duly proved. The interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India would be warranted only when the findings are found to be either perverse or impossible. From the perusal of the orders of both the lower Courts, it would reveal that both the Courts, upon appreciation of material, found that the landlord has proved his bona fide need and is requiring the shop premises for business of his son. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the open 4 land available with the landlord is concerned, the Courts below have found that the suit premises so also the open plot were adjacent to each other and it has been found that the landlord desired to demolish the suit premises and construct a shop on the suit premises, and also on the open space owned by him. The Courts below have found that in support of this contention the plaintiff had placed on record a map drawn by an Engineer which would show that the construction was to be carried out on the suit plots as well as open plot. It is a settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his need. Unless it is found that the need is imaginary, it would not be possible for this Court to sit in appeal over the concurrent finding of facts. 7. So far as the comparative hardship is concerned, both the Courts have found that the petitioner is a retired Naib Tahsildar. He owns two storied building in an area nearby the suit premises. It has been further found that the petitioner if he carries out necessary alteration in the ground floor of the building owned by him, he could very well continue his business in the said premises. As against this, it has been found that there is no other place available with the landlord wherein he could start business of his son. In that view of the matter, 5 no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the Courts below. The test of comparative hardship lies in favour of the landlord. 8. In so far as the contention regarding subsequently the shop becoming vacant is concerned, apart from placing some document on record, the petitioner has not done anything to substantiate the said claim. It is well settled by now that if the tenant desires to bring the subsequent event on record, it has to be done by adopting proper procedure established under the law. In any case, the landlord has specifically denied that any such suit shop has become vacant. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the third contention raised on behalf of the petition. 9. Shri Khapre, has lastly submitted that the premises owned by it are inadequate for his large family and the same has not been considered by both the Courts below properly. In so far as this contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, in my view, both the Courts below have come to a correct finding of fact in this regard. Merely because the tenant wants to have large and luxurious premises for his own accommodation cannot be a ground for denying the landlord the possession of the premises which are 6 required for his bona fide need. 10. In view of the concurrent findings of fact which have been supported by sound and cogent reasons, no interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE sahare