1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2826 OF 2010 (Smt. Usha wd/o Manohar Desai vs. Mr. Pramod A. Udhoji) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2010. Heard Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent. The Small Cause Court as also the appellate Court have granted decree of eviction to the respondent on the ground of bonafide need. The concurrent findings are challenged basically by pointing out certain portions from the evidence of the plaintiff to allege that said admissions are not appropriately dealt with by the appellate Court. The contention is, if those admissions coupled with absence of documents is looked into, the alleged business and need for it has not been established. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there are no admissions as such and the material on record has been properly evaluated by both the Courts. The perusal of written statement as filed, clearly shows that the storage of oil tins in open 2 courtyard of the plaintiff's premises situated at Khare Town, Dharampeth, Nagpur, was not disputed by the petitioner. The only assertion is, oil tins pertain to business in which the plaintiff and his son are dealing. The alleged admissions of the plaintiff when read in the light of this material, clearly show that a confusion is sought to be created because in cross examination, the word used is not open courtyard but house. The plaintiff has stated that he was not aware whether Rahul (his son) is doing any business or not or whether Rahul then (at the relevant time) was storing oil tins. Those answers do not dilute his earlier cross examination which shows that his son has been doing the business. The material has been brought on record in his cross examination by the present petitioner. The absence of any documentary evidence to show that business also, therefore, is not fatal. The trial Court as also appellate Court have evaluated this evidence and arrived at the findings. The findings are not perverse. There is no jurisdiction error. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.