1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4849/2011 Laxmibai S. Vaidya and others Vs. Rameshkumar B. Dave =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S. M. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Chandurkar, Advocate for the respondent. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 14 th NOVEMBER, 2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court holding that the respondent-landlord was entitled to possession of the suit premises under Section 16(1)(g) and Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as the respondent-landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation and the petitioners were in arrears of rent. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record held that they were several members in the joint family of the landlord – Rameshkumar, as both his sons were married. The joint family of the respondent was living in the premises purchased by the wife of the respondent at the time of tendering the evidence. The Courts 2 found that the premises in occupation of the respondent was insufficient for the residence and business of the respondent-landlord. The Courts held that the suit premises in occupation of the petitioner were required by the respondent for expansion of the grocery business of his son and also for starting a guidance center for the students as one of the sons of the landlord was running tuition classes. Considering the need of the landlord for the residence and business purposes, the Courts held that the landlord was entitled for possession of the suit premises under Section 16(1)(g) of the Rent Control Act. The submission made on behalf the petitioners that the respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands and had not disclosed that he was residing in yet another house and not the suit house appears to be ill-founded as when the evidence was tendered in the year 2007, the landlord was required to shift, along with his family in the house purchased by his wife in view of the insufficient accommodation. In any case, there was ample evidence on record to show that the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. The finding recorded by both the Courts in this regard is a pure finding of fact and needs no interference in exercise of the writ 3 jurisdiction. Similarly, the Courts were justified in holding that the petitioners were in arrears of rent. The Courts considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and held that the landlord was entitled to possession of the suit premises under Section 15 of the Rent Control Act. The finding recorded by both the Courts on the issue of comparative hardship is also a pure finding of fact and needs no interference. The judgment reported in (1981) 3 SCC 103 (Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prasad) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.