wp1189.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1189/2011 Ashok Daulatrao Ingale -vs- Ramprasad Brijmohan Mishra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A. P. Kalmegh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri O. D. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 16/06/2011 The above petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 31/03/2008 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur and the order dated 25/10/2010 passed by the District Judge-5 and Additional Session Judge, Nagpur, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.327/2005 came to be confirmed. The petitioner herein is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.327/2005, which was filed by the respondent-landlord herein for the ejectment and possession on the ground of bona fide requirement. The respondent-landlord i.e. plaintiff is the owner of house wp1189.11.odt 2/4 bearing No.930 situated at Hanuman Mandir, Chhaoni, Nagpur consisting of one room on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor, which were let out to the petitioner on the monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The said suit was filed on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement, as it was the case of the plaintiff that his family consists of 14 members and the present residential premises available with him were not sufficient for his growing family and that the petitioner herein, who was the defendant, has his own house just adjacent to the house of the plaintiff towards North-West side having an area admeasuring 1200 sq.ft. wherein the petitioner is staying with his family by locking the suit premises for more than three years. The parties went to trial. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the case of bona fide requirement was proved by the respondent-landlord, as the respondent- landlord was staying with his three married sons and their respective families and the residential premises available with him was inadequate. The trial Court also recorded a finding that the defendant was having his own house behind the house of the plaintiff. The trial Court therefore was of the view that the need of the plaintiff for the suit wp1189.11.odt 3/4 premises could not be doubted. The trial Court has further held that the need of the plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein was a pressing need and not a mere desire. The trial Court on the basis of the well settled principle, that it is not for the Courts to direct the landlord how to use his premises, decreed the suit filed by the respondent- landlord-plaintiff by judgment and order dated 31/03/2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 31/03/2008, the petitioner herein filed Regular Civil Appeal No.280/2008. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court in respect of the bona fide need of the plaintiff. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders, in my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the Appellate Court, calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted time up to 31st October, 2011 to hand over vacant and peaceful wp1189.11.odt 4/4 possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord on filing the usual undertaking to this Court within a period of two weeks from date. If the undertaking is not filed within time stipulated by this order, the respondent- landlord would be free to execute the decree in accordance with law. JUDGE KHUNTE