1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (mca) No. 676 of 2011 (In W.P. No. 1304 of 2001) Motising s/o Dhansing Jakhad (dead) thr. L.Rs. Smt. Basantibai wd/o Motising Jakhad & ors. ...Versus... Smt. Rajnibai w/o Ratnakar Vaidya & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.R. Choudhari Adv. for applicants. Mr. C.S. Kaptan Advocate for Res. 1 & 2(a). … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24.08.2011. Heard. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the review applicants argued that this Court has recorded a finding in the judgment under review that two rooms have been occupied for Kirana shops and only three rooms are in occupation of landlady and her children and that is why this Court found that there was a bona fide need. According to the learned counsel, the story about Kirana shop was not at all pleaded nor there is evidence to that effect and, therefore, this Court should not have considered the said fact which was not pleaded. Per contra, Mr.Kaptan, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that there are 2 pleadings in para 3 and 4 in relation to the family members residing together in the house in question. There is a further pleading that there is quarrel due to short accommodation. There is further pleading that the review petitioner has his own house and agricultural land at Pardi, where there is a farm house of the respondent. He then argued that the fact about Kirana shop has been specifically stated in para 5 of written statement and this Court has properly analysed the evidence on record which the appellate court had in a perverse manner rejected. I have gone through the judgment under review. I have also heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also seen the pleadings pointed out to me in para 5 of the written statement. I have also seen the evidence of witness Rajni which was discussed. The submission made by Mr.Choudhari that there was no mention of Kirana shop etc. will have to be rejected in view of the fact that in the evidence of Ratnakar there is a specific mention about Kirana shop in two rooms and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no evidence to that effect. It is true that the said evidence has come in the cross- examination, but it is the evidence, which the Court is entitled to consider. That being so, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by Mr.Choudhari to that effect. 3 That apart, it is seen that the rooms were given to the respondent/tenant at the relevant time reposing faith in him, he being Resident Deputy Collector. But after retirement he has own house and agricultural land with Farm House The respondent, therefore, has no reason to continue to stay in the rented house. In the above background, there was bona fide properly established and no fault can be found in the judgment under review. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present review application. MCA No. 676/11 for review is dismissed. Judge /TA/