1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 21/2011 (Baldeoraj H. Sahani VERSUS Smt. Rajkumari R. Lahoti) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.M. Sudame, counsel for the petitioner Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 31 , 2011 . Both the Courts have consistently held that the landlady-respondent was entitled to possession of the suit premises under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner has impugned the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court holding that the landlady was entitled to possession of the suit property. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of both the judgments, it appears that the Courts have not committed any error in holding that the landlady bona fide required the suit premises for her son Rajesh, who was doing business in the name and style of Spectron Infotech. The plaintiff had produced evidence on record to show that her son Rajesh was the proprietor of the said firm and was doing his business in resale, wholesale and importing of the computers. It was apparent from the record that Rajesh was carrying on his business from a varandah on the first floor of the building in which the suit premises were located. There were shop premises vacant on the backside 2 of the building but, it has come on record that those premises were not useful for Rajesh for starting his sales depot as the said premises were not directly visible from the road. It is necessary to note that a suggestion was given by the plaintiff to the defendant's witness in the cross-examination as to whether the defendant was ready to shift his business in one of the shops located on the backside of the suit building but, the defendant's witness Kshitij, who was also carrying on the business in the suit premises, refused to accept the said proposal. The Courts rightly found that the refusal on the part of the defendant's witness to accept the said proposal itself showed that the premises on the backside of the building were not suitable for carrying on the business either by the plaintiff or by the defendant. There was nothing on record to show that there was any other suitable shop block available to the plaintiff or her son for carrying on the business of selling computers and computer products. The Courts, therefore, held that the landlady had clearly proved her bona fide need to occupy the suit premises. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts have not given any thought to the issue of comparative hardship, it is apparent from a reading of the judgments of both the Courts that the Courts have found that the plaintiff's son had obtained a Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics and was doing his business of selling computers and the allied computer products. The Courts found that the varandah, in which Rajesh was carrying on his business, was on the first floor of the building and since the suit premises was located on the ground floor and was situated on the road, the same was suitable for carrying 3 on the business. The Courts also found that in case, the decree of eviction was not granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and her son would suffer more. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of comparative hardship is just and reasonable and cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE