1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 396/2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 4332/2010. Shri Vivekanand Deochand Khedikar through L.Rs. -VERSUS- Shri Bhikamchand Pannasao Jain _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2011. Heard Shri U.K. Bisen, learned Counsel for the appellant/tenant. Suit filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction of appellant on the ground of non- payment of rent under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and on account of bonafide need under Section 16[1][g] of the Act, has been decreed concurrently by the Courts. The Courts have also recorded a positive finding on bonafide need and 2 arrears. The learned Single Judge of this Court has looked into this controversy and dismissed the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Before the learned Single Judge, contention was, the Courts did not discharge obligation cast upon them under section 16[2] of the Act, since there was no finding recorded regarding the comparative hardship. It is contended that in the written statement the tenant need not set up any defence in this respect. Reliance is placed upon judgment reported at 2010[2] B.C.R. 63 (Bismilla Bee Sk. Chand and another .vrs. Mohd. Anwar Mohd. Akhtar) with contention that the very same Judge has delivered that judgment and in paragraph no. 17 therein found an obligation cast upon the Court to record a finding in that respect. According to him, even if no such defence is raised, such finding must be recorded. In the alternative and without prejudice, the learned counsel for the appellant further submits 3 that though it has been brought on record that the respondent / plaintiff has several other immovable properties, the trial Court has erroneously found that the defendant has not discharged the burden of proving that the alternative accommodation was sufficient for expansion of business of plaintiff. Learned Counsel by relying upon the provisions of section 16[1][g], has stated that said burden was upon the plaintiff himself. It is further contended that the trial Court has recorded a finding about amount of arrears or about the default, under section 15 in paragraph 18 of its judgment and because of that finding the decree under Section 16[1][g] has been passed. We have carefully perused the record. The trial Court has framed all necessary issues and has recorded a separate finding on issue no.2 about reasonable and bonafide need and that issue has been answered by the trial Court in the affirmative independently while considering the evidence on record in paragraph no.17. It is no doubt true that it has made reference to Section 15[3] as well as 4 Section 16[1][g] of the Act in paragraph no.18, but that by itself is not sufficient to vitiate the orders. The learned Single Judge has looked into the arguments advanced and has given valid reasons for upholding the concurrent findings. Perusal of the reported judgment (supra) shows that there the trial Court itself had framed an issue as to comparative hardship. While deciding that issue the other part of section 16[2] which deals with possibility of partial eviction from tenanted premises was not looked into. Thus though issue was framed, part of it was not answered and therefore, the learned Single Judge has found it proper to interfere in the matter. Here that is not the position. The appellant/tenant has nor raised any pleading about comparative hardship or then warranting partial eviction. He remained satisfied after bringing on record plaintiff's ownership of other immovable properties and material to show that those properties could have been put to use for expansion of business or bonafides has not been brought on record. We therefore, do not find anything wrong with the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge 5 as well as the Courts below. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd