1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 167 of 2008 [M.P. Gulhane Vs. N.S. Parate & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.S. Akbani, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1 though served. Mr. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th March,2008. 1. In this case, this Court had issued notice calling the respondents to show cause as to why the case should not be remanded to First Appellate Forum. 2. The respondent no.1 has not appeared. The petition is, therefore, taken up for hearing. 3. Heard. 4. The Appellate Authority has accepted landlord's plea of bona fide personal requirement. 5. Grievance of tenant is that :- [a] The First Appellate Court has not 2 correctly appreciated the evidence, as vital admissions in oral evidence of landlord have not been properly considered where the landlord has admitted that he has constructed additional structure and this would destroy his bona fide personal requirement. [b] His application [Annexure-G] praying for remand is not favourably considered. According to him, in support of this application, he had filed copy of Sale-Deed of property purchased by son of landlord. 6. Petitioner's above submissions are dealt with as follows:- Failure to consider evidence and admissions therein, and about the fact of additional construction done by the landlord : 7. Learned Advocate wanted and hence has taken this Court through the Notes of Evidence of the landlord placed by him on record. 8. It is seen from the evidence that during pendency of suit, the plaintiff has constructed a room of 90 sq.ft.. 9. Thrust of the petitioner is on the fact of construction, and he does not want to have any reference to the area of construction. 3 10. It is further seen from the discussion in the impugned Judgment on record pages 67 to 69 that the Appellate Authority has scrutinized the evidence and applied mind to the area of which possession is sought and area actually in possession of the landlord. 11. Considering the proportion of the newly constructed room which admeasures only 90 sq.ft., it cannot be said that failure of the First Appellate Court to mention this fact of additional room of 90 sq.ft. does not really affect the merit of the case of the tenant favourably or merit of the case of the landlord adversely. 12. The First Appellate Court has paved the beaten way of following the doctrine that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and his version of his need and the nature thereof has to be respected. The Appellate Forum has also referred to the fact that the eviction proceedings were initiated prior to twenty years and the growing need of the family in the background was required to be considered. 13. It is, thus, vivid that the Appellate Authority has duly scrutinized and considered the evidence; lest it could not have relied upon the landlord's admission that there are no arrears of rent and hence declined the landlord's demand of termination of tenancy on 4 the ground of Clause 13 [3] [i] and [ii] of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order. Petitioner's prayer for remand : 14. The petitioner's prayer for remand is made by him through application dated 3rd July, 2007 which is Annexure-G. 15. According to the petitioner, as the appellant has amended his Appeal Memo as well as tenant has amended his Written Statement, and both parties have brought on record subsequent developments, the remand is necessary. 16. When questioned on the specific ground as to what is the evidence brought on record by the tenant, learned Advocate informed the Court that fact of purchase of property by one of the sons of the plaintiff, and copy of sale-deed was brought on record of Appellate Forum. 17. The copy of sale-deed dated 21st February, 1997 is not a part of paper-book, but was produced by Advocate for petitioner in the midst of hearing. On perusal of sale-deed, it is seen that the property has been described as a plot of 1200 sq.ft., with incomplete “Kaccha” construction commenced in 1984 over 600 sq.ft. in incomplete status. 5 18. Learned Advocate for the petitioner admits that the structure is not a house, however, he surmises that by this time the plot must have been converted into a house. 19. There is no other material brought before the Court to impel a conclusion that the material so brought on record by the petitioner warranted hearing and enquiry. 20. On the very face of it, the material brought on record by the petitioner is thoroughly inadequate to call for recording of additional evidence, or fresh consideration of facts by the Trial Court with an added advantage of consideration of the need by the Appellate Forum. 21. Above discussion will reveal that the impugned order is passed after due consideration of the facts and law. This Court is satisfied that the evidence has been duly appreciated. The appreciation of evidence does not mean that after scrutiny, the Court should threadbare go on stating what the evidence is, and keep on writing reasons for each piece of evidence for such acceptance. 22. The insistence for remand by the tenant-petitioner is, therefore, eloquent enough to speak for the intentions underlying. The craving is not for justice, but for enlarging 6 the period of retention of possession. There is no injustice or semblance thereof shown while it is urged that in spite of a prayer, the remand has not been ordered. 23. In the result, the petition does not merit interference. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 1582 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No. 167 of 2008 [M.P. Gulhane Vs. N.S. Parate & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.S. Akbani, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1 though served. Mr. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th March,2008. Heard. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Application is disposed of. Judge |Hedau|