(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8088 OF 2010 1. Nirmalabai w/o. Nutankumar Jaiswal, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household. 2. Priyanaka d/o. Nutunkumar Jaiswal, Age : 26 years, Occupation : - , 3. Amit s/o. Nutankumar Jaiswal, Age : 23 years, Occupation : Business. All residents of Faijpur, Taluka : Yaval, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Jivatram s/o. Rechaldas Sinidhi, Dead through L.R. : 1-A] Parvatibai Jivatram Advani, Age : 75 years, Occupation : Household Work, Residing at Sindhi Colony, Baher Peth, Faizpur, Taluka : Yaval, District : Jalgaon. 2. Kawadmala s/o. Rechaldas Sindhi, Dead through L.Rs. : (2) 2-A] Pramilabai Kawadamal Sindhi, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Household. 2-B] Prakash s/o. Kawadamal Sindhi, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household. 2-C] Vijay s/o. Kawadamal Sindhi, Age : 45 yea rs, Occupation : Household. 2-D] Rajkumar s/o. Kawadamal Sindhi, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Household. All residents of Faizpur, Taluka : Yaval, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate, for the petitioners. Smt. M.S. Shendage, Advocate, holding for Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1-A and 2-A to 2-D. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL 2011 (3) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Shri K.C. Sant, for the petitioner, and Adv. Smt. M.S. Shendage, holding for Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 9-8-2010, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon, below Exhibit 121 in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999. 3. Petitioners before this court are landlords and appellants in Civil Appeal No. 23/1999. Their suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent was partly decreed. Rejection of eviction is questioned by them in the said appeal. 4. According to Adv. Mr. K.C. Sant, for the petitioners, as question of comparative hardship falls for consideration, the petitioners sought summons to Municipal Council to show vacant blocks in its various shopping complex. That witness summons was issued and as the witness did not bring relevant records, his evidence could not be recorded. The petitioner, therefore, again sought witness summons with specific direction and that has been rejected. (4) 5. With the assistance of respective Counsel for the parties, I have perused impugned order. It appears that the petitioner had with him, information about vacant blocks supplied to him by Municipal Council under Right to Information Act. In view of this material, view taken by the appellate court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere at this stage. 6. With liberty to the petitioners, to take such appropriate steps as are open in law, before the appellate court, present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8088