1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1915 of 2008 [J.D. Atkari Vs. G.B. Bawankule] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Lahabar, Advocate for the respondent sole. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 30th April,2008. 1. Heard. 2. Tenant is aggrieved by order of eviction. 3. The landlord had sought eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The Trial Court accepted it, and the Appellate Court confirmed the same. 4. The petitioner-tenant wants to challenge the said finding by bringing before this Court, for the first time, additional evidence and additional ground to urge the aspect of comparative hardship. He pleads that landlord was having in possession one shop block which was let out by him. He has, therefore, 2 placed on record of this Court copies of two Rent Notes dated 15th May, 2000 and 21st April, 2001, and seeks permission to rely on those. He further contends that the landlord had sold out these properties during pendency of eviction proceedings. As regards these documents which are at Annex.15, the petitioner pleads in the body of petition, which reads as follows:- “6. ....It is further submitted that respondent was having to his credit block no.4 in Pragati Co- operative Housing Society Scheme at Dighori, the said block is transferred in the name of his son Narendra and it is reliably learnt that Narendra transferred the same to one Mr. Santosh Namdeo Hatwar and said fact is corroborated by the document of Agreement of tenancy of said block in favour of Rambhau Chintaman Hedaoo on 17/5/2000 and 3/5/2001, copies of same are enclosed as Annexure-15. It is learnt that, the said shop block no.4 was situated at Dighori square at Umred Road and it is apparent that if the respondent is holding the shop block in his name and subsequently he transfers the same in his son and the son transfers the same to the prospective purchaser Santosh it cannot be said that the respondent was in bonafide need of the shop block to start the business of grocery or general stores. ....” 5. It is seen on what is relied upon by the petitioner that those Rent Notes pertain to period much prior to filing of suit. It is not shown that the said tenant had vacated the said 3 shop block before or during pendency of proceedings. While the sale of said shop is alleged, even before this Court, no material is brought on record. 6. Landlord's word has to be final on the point of bona fide personal requirement, and is so accepted by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. 7. Without showing availability of a shop block to the plaintiff, bare clamour that he had a shop block does not carry any weightage for enabling the tenant to earn any sympathy on the point of comparative hardship. 8. The additional evidence, which the tenant wants, is totally incomplete and irrelevant too. 9. In the circumstances, Petition does not merit interference. It is, therefore, dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Joharapurkar for the petitioner states that if the tenant wants time to vacate, he be given liberty to do so. 11. Petitioner is free to make an application by incorporating a standard undertaking seeking time for vacation. Such application must include an undertaking, that 4 suit block is in possession of tenant, he shall vacate it and deliver it to the landlord without being required to file Execution Petition, all arrears will be paid within a fixed time, and he shall not part with any part of the suit block to anyone and will not do any act prejudicial to the interest of landlord. 12. The decree for eviction shall not be executed for a period one week from today, for enabling the petitioner to file application and undertaking. Judge |Hedau|