1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.47 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.5845 of 2007 (Decided) (Prabhakar s/o Shrawanji Perkar v. Ganpati s/o Shrawanji Sonkusre) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri I.S. Charlewar, Counsel for Appellant. Shri M. Anilkumar, Counsel for Respondent. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 14th March, 2008 1. The appellant is a tenant of shop premises owned by the respondent-landlord. The respondent instituted suit for eviction of the appellant on three counts, viz. (i) arrears of rent, (ii) bona fide need, and (iii) nuisance. The Trial Court decreed the suit on one count only, i.e. arrears of rent. The tenant preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in which the landlord filed cross-objection. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed cross-objection of the landlord on all the three counts. The appellate decree was challenged by the tenant by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the fact-finding done by the Appellate Court is not shown to be perverse, that the matter of appreciation of evidence has to be restricted to the stage of the First Appellate Court and that the writ petition cannot be converted into a Court of third trial or an appeal at second instance. 2 2. The learned counsel for the appellant-tenant urged that the appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Court on the grounds of bona fide need and nuisance was correct, whereas the appreciation of evidence on all the three counts made by the Appellate Court was incorrect. 3. We are afraid we cannot enter into appreciation of evidence again. We do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant states that the appellant-tenant is ready to vacate the suit shop within six months. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that at the most three months' time may be granted to the appellant-tenant to vacate the suit shop. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case, we grant four months' time to the appellant-tenant to vacate the suit shop. 7. The appellant-tenant is directed to deposit the entire decretal amount and arrears till date within the above period in addition to filing an undertaking within one week that the suit shop would be vacated within four months. JUDGE JUDGE pdl