1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 224 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2009 (D) (Narayan Tukaram Shinde ...VERSUS... Purushottam Metharam Motwani) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. D.V.Chavan, Advocate for appellant. C ORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 7th June, 2010. 1. Heard Mr. D.V.Chavan, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 10/3/2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5262/2009. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/ landlord and confirmed the order of the appellate court whereby the appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed. The appellant had filed suit against the respondent/tenant for eviction from the shop premises on the ground of bona 2 fide need of the premises. In the course of trial, the respondent/tenant, apart from oral evidence, brought on record certain photographs showing that two more shops were lying vacant at the relevant time and, therefore, the need of the landlord was not genuine. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tenant did not bring any material on record to show that the two shops were in possession of the landlord. There is no dispute that the respondent/tenant has so pleaded in the written statement and also led oral evidence and produced photographs on record in support of his case. As against this, the appellant/landlord could not demonstrat that the two shops were not in his possession either by naming the tenants or examining any witnesses in support thereof. 4. We do not find any error warranting interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition. Hence, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale