1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1305 of 2007 (Panditrao Damaji Chawre Vs Shri Amol Suresh Mahajan) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.P. Tathod, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Solat, Adv. for R-Sole. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 14 th October, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Washim, on 18/11/2006, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent- landlord and directing the petitioner to deliver the possession of the suit house to the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent is the landlord. A suit was instituted against the petitioner by the respondent for ejectment and possession. According to the respondent, his grandfather had inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the 2 suit house. In pursuance of a Will executed by his grandfather, the respondent claimed to have become the owner of the suit house in the year 1998. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and the respondent also required the suit house for his bona fide residence. The claim of the respondent was denied by the petitioner. It was denied that the respondent required the suit premises for his bona fide residence or business. According to the petitioner, the respondent had another big house in the prime locality of the town where he resided with the other members of his family. The tenant also denied that he was in arrears of rent. The petitioner sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the respondent-landlord had failed to prove that he required the suit premises bona fide for his occupation and that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The judgment passed by the trial Court was challenged by the respondent in an appeal. By the impugned judgment dated 18/11/2006, 3 the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of the suit house to the respondent. The judgment dated 18/11/2006 is impugned in the instant petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and I have also perused the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Courts. While reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issue of the requirement of the landlord, the first appellate Court considered the fact that the landlord had claimed the suit premises for his residence and his business. The first appellate Court took notice of the fact that the respondent was 22 years of age at the time of filing of the suit and was of marriageable age at the time, the matter was decided in appeal. The first appellate Court also considered the fact that the father of the plaintiff had expired and the plaintiff was living with his mother and his brother, in a house belonging to his brother. There was nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was the owner of some other 4 residential property. The facts of the case show that the suit property comprised of two rooms and a Chhapari and since the plaintiff did not have any other house of his own, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the first appellate Court that the landlord required the house for his bona fide residence. It was pleaded by the plaintiff, in the plaint, that he required the suit property for his business and his residence and in his evidence, the plaintiff had categorically stated that he does not have any other house of his own in the town and, therefore, had filed the suit for ejectment and possession on the ground that he required the same for his bona fide residence. After having held that the respondent bona fide required the house for his residence, the first appellate Court further observed that the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant, in case a decree for ejectment and possession was not passed in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide need. The Court while considering the fact that the petitioner was an old man, also considered the fact that the plaintiff was required to reside in his brother's house though 5 he had a house of his own. It is further conspicuous to note that though the tenant had stated in his evidence that he required the house for the residence of his family members and himself as his children were taking education, he admitted in his cross- examination that one of his sons was working on a high post in Government service in Mumbai and his other son was staying away from him in Karanja and was working as a Teacher. He further admitted in his cross- examination that his daughter was also of a marriageable age. In this background, the findings recorded by the first appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. There is no reason for interfering with the judgment passed by the first appellate Court, specially in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP