1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2008 Namdeo K. Channe .vs. Subhash D. Jais ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. Rajpure, Advocate for appellant, Mr. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by tenant against the order passed by Single Judge dated 16.1.2008 whereby considering the findings given by Courts below on the ground of default as well as bonafide need of the respondent/landlord declined to interfere. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant basically contended that the sole respondent is not the landlord as he has no title to the suit property. As observed rightly, this issue was never raised in the lower Court and, therefore, not allowed to raise in Writ Petition also. Even otherwise, there is no dispute that the appellant/tenant treated the respondent throughout as a landlord. He occupied the said premises based upon the relationship of landlord and tenant. He paid the rent regularly to the respondent. Now the challenge to the title for the first time after such long period, that itself is an additional factor that Court did not interfere 2 with this order of eviction. The question of hardship in such matter and as observed by the learned Single Judge based upon the finding given by the Court below considering the grant of eviction decree on the foundation of bonafide need, tilt in favour of landlord. Therefore, as there is no perversity and as the impugned order is within the framework of law and record, no interference is necessary. The L.P.A. is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.