1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.121 of 2010 (Laxminarayan s/o Matabadal Mishra v. Ganesh Prasad s/o Ramlal Gupta) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri J.A. Anthony, Advocate for Applicant. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 24 th January, 2011 1. This civil revision application challenges the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in a suit for eviction of a tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement. It has been held that the applicant/tenant was the defaulter in payment of rent from 1-1-1994 to 31-1-2006. It has further been held that the respondent/landlord has established that the premises in question are bona fidely required by him for starting the business of computer shop. 2 2. The need putforth by the respondent/landlord was in respect of his son Rohit Gupta, who has done Bachelor's course in Computer Application and wanted to start his computer shop for selling hardwares and softwares and also for maintenance of computers. The requirement was established for at least three rooms. The son of the respondent/landlord has entered the witness box and deposed the need. He has been cross-examined by the applicant/tenant. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the plea raised by the applicant/tenant that the respondent/landlord was having alternate accommodation to start the business. The same has, however, been rejected on the ground that the premises in question are residential premises and the same cannot be utilized for commercial purposes. The Appellate Court has concurred with this finding recorded by the Trial Court. 3 3. On the question of comparative hardship, the Trial Court has recorded the finding that the respondent/landlord has established that greater hardship would be caused if the decree of eviction is not passed. It has also taken into consideration the fact that the applicant/tenant was running the hotel in the suit premises. It is not in dispute that the premises were demolished by the Municipal Corporation and the respondent/landlord wanted to build his shop for the purposes of running the business. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the applicant/tenant has failed to establish the comparative hardship. The Appellate Court has concurred with this finding recorded by the Trial Court. 4. On the question of arrears of rent, the Courts below have recorded the finding that the respondent/landlord has established that the applicant/tenant was in arrears of rent from 1-1-1994 to 4 31-1-2006. It has been held that the respondent/landlord is entitled to recover the amount of arrears of rent. Shri Anthony, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/tenant, has submitted that the entire amount of arrears has been deposited by the applicant/tenant in the Trial Court. 5. Shri Anthony, the learned counsel, has urged that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record while recording the finding that the applicant/tenant was in arrears of rent and that the respondent/landlord has established the bona fide need and the applicant/tenant has failed to establish the comparative hardship. This Court is not sitting in appeal, but it is the revisional jurisdiction, which has been invoked under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. In view of this, the appreciation of evidence, howsoever erroneous it may be, cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5 On perusal of the findings recorded by the Courts below, it is apparent that the findings are based upon the evidence available on record and the same cannot, therefore, be characterized as perverse findings. 6. It is the further contention of Shri Anthony, the learned counsel for the applicant/tenant, that the premises in question are open site and hence the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act are not applicable to the said premises. Though this point was not raised before the Trial Court, the same was raised before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has negatived it on the ground that it cannot be for the first time permitted to be raised in appeal. Thus, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Appellate Court. 7. In view of above, there is no substance in the present 6 civil revision application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl