: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2009 Hargen Gajraj Singh ... Applicant V/s. Mahesh Hemchand Patel ... Respondent Mr.V.Y. Sanglikar for Applicant Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has moved this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Small Causes Court and the appellate Court. Both the Courts below have held that the landlords-respondents require the suit premises, bonafide. The courts have also held that greater hardship would be caused to the landlords if the suit is not decreed in their favour. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the plaint proceeds on the footing that the applicant is a conductor of a business and therefore according to the learned advocate the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The next submission is that all the co-owners have not been joined as plaintiffs as one of the brothers, Rajesh has not been arrayed as a plaintiff. Another submission is that while : 2 : considering the bonafide requirement of the landlords, the Courts below have not taken into account the evidence on record which indicates that the landlords required the premises for storage of their goods while the applicant was carrying on his business in those premises. According to the learned advocate if the suit premises were to be used for storage of goods it would mean that they were put to industrial use and not commercial use and therefore the suit ought not to have been decreed. As regards comparative hardship, he submits that the Courts below have not taken into account the fact that the suit premises where the Applicant runs a shop, are only about 160 sq.ft whereas the landlord was occupying an area of 860 sq.ft and was manufacturing plastic material. He submits permitting the applicant to carry on the business in the small space occupied by him would not prejudicially affect the respondents. He further submits that the applicant did not have the wherewithal to purchase any other suitable accommodation to conduct his business and, therefore, the Court ought not to have decreed the suit. 3. The submission regarding the jurisdiction is buttressed by the judgment of this Court in the case of Anusuyabai Narayanrao Ghate vs. Smt.Maktumbi S. Nadaf, 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 836. In my opinion, this judgment has no application to the facts in the present case. Undisputedly, the applicant had filed a declaratory suit earlier in which the Court had decreed the suit and the applicant had been declared to be a tenant. The plaint does not proceed, as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant, on the footing that the applicant is conducting a business. In the initial paragraphs of the plaint there is a mere narration of the history of the litigation and the relationship between the parties. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the applicant is a tenant and that the landlord required the suit premises, bonafide. : 3 : 4. As regards the contention that all the brothers have not been joined as plaintiffs in the suit, the submission is not tenable. In the case of Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, the Supreme Court has held that one of the co- owners can file such a suit. This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in several judgments and hence the submission must be rejected 5. As regards the issue of bonafide requirement, the Courts below have held that the landlords bonafide, required the suit premises for storage of the goods manufactured by them. The plaintiffs have led evidence on this issue and both the Courts have accepted this evidence. I need not interfere with this finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below as it is not perverse. 6. With respect to the comparative hardship, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the space occupied by the applicant is minimal and no hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if the decree for ejectment was not to be passed. Both the Courts again have taken into consideration the fact that there was no pleading or evidence led by the applicant to establish that he had made any attempt to obtain alternate shop premises. The Courts have found that the plaintiffs required the premises to store their manufactured goods. The Courts have also found that there is no material on record to indicate that the applicant did not have the wherewithal to rent any other premises in view of the fact that he had agricultural income. The Courts have also found that the applicant has not produced any material to indicate that his income from the business would not allow him to secure alternate premises. There were no pleadings to that effect either. This Court in the : 4 : case of Yogesh Dattaram Pathak vs. Shrikrishna Shriram Joshi, 2003 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 587 has held that the tenant in its written statement must plead that it was not possible to secure alternate accommodation. The tenant in the present case that is the applicant herein has not pleaded so in his written statement. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the both the Courts below. 7. Civil revision application rejected. 8. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicant, the decree is stayed for a period of six months from today subject to the usual undertaking being furnished to this Court by the applicant and all the adults in his family.