1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4438/2010 (THE ACHALPUR INDUSTRIAL WEAVING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS HARISH @ HARIRAM GAJANAN AGARWAL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Deshpande, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent-landlord bona fide required the suit premises for the business of the respondent’s wife. The Courts concurrently held that the respondent-landlord was entitled to the possession of the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Courts observed that the respondent-landlord needed the suit premises as his wife desired to start business in ready-made clothes and garments in the suit premises. Though certain portion on the southern side of the house was vacant, both the Courts found that the said portion was not facing the market and, hence, the same was not suitable for running the business of the wife of the respondent-landlord. The Courts concurrently found that the comparative hardship to the respondent-landlord would 2 be greater than the petitioner-tenant if the suit was not decreed. The Courts observed that it was not the case of the petitioner-Society that the plaintiff-respondent had any suitable accommodation in the city for starting the business. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of comparative hardship is based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Society states that it was contended on behalf of the petitioner- Society on 20.09.2010 that if the other submissions of the petitioner-Society are not accepted, the petitioner-Society was ready to shift on the first floor of the building, which was vacant. However, it is pointed out on behalf of the respondent-landlord that the respondent-landlord is not in a position to permit the petitioner-Society to run the business in the first floor premises as the first floor premises are also occupied by the respondent-landlord and his family members for residence. Even otherwise, the respondent-landlord had never offered the petitioner-Society to shift its business on the first floor premises either before filing the suit or at any point of time, thereafter. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, the same call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE