: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.353 OF 2009 Umesh Pandurang Khedkar .. Applicant V/s. Sabera Hasan Yar Khan & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for the Applicant. Mrs. J.N. Pandhi for Respondent Nos.2 to 17. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been preferred against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in R.A.E. Suit No.199/298 of 2003 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, which have been confirmed by the Appellate Court of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.295 of 2008, with respect to the bonafide need of the landlord for the suit premises. The respondents-plaintiffs are the tenants of the suit premises and they had sublet the premises to the applicant-defendant. Both the Courts below while considering the need of the respondents-plaintiffs : 2 : for the suit premises have observed that the suit premises “belonged” to the respondents-plaintiffs. 2. Mr. Dani appearing for the applicant-defendant takes exception to this observation of the Courts below and submits that while considering the bonafide need of a head tenant, the criteria adopted must be different, as compared to the need of a landlord who is the owner of the suit premises. He submits that the landlord who owns the premises cannot be expected to live in tenanted premises or conduct his business in tenanted premises, if he has premises which are occupied by a tenant. He submits that in such a case the need of the landlord for the premises may be justified. He urges that when the need of a head tenant is considered, he must establish something more than what should be demonstrated by a landlord who is the owner while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. 3. In my opinion, this subtle distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Dani cannot be accepted. It is : 3 : true that both the Courts below have observed that the suit premises “belonged” to the respondents- plaintiffs. However, this cannot be read in the context that the plaintiffs owned the premises. In any event, the definition of the term “landlord” under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act includes in its sweep, both a person who owns the suit premises as well as one who is a tenant and has sublet the tenanted premises. A perusal of Section 1(b) under which the grounds of ejectment have been delineated also does not make a distinction between various categories of landlords. 4. While considering the comparative hardship, the Courts below have considered the fact that the constituted attorney of the applicant has deposed before the trial Court and not the sub-tenant himself. In fact, there is evidence on record to indicate that the sub-tenant is neither residing nor carrying on business in the suit premises. The Appellate Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondents had offered the applicant alternate premises which he had refused to accept. : 4 : 5. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to differ from the view adopted by both the Courts below. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. The stay granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of eight weeks from today. .......