1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5473/2010 (Abdul Aziz Mohd. Hanif VERSUS Smt. Rabia Begum Mohd. Hanif Qureshi) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.V. Siras, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.M. Pande, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 18 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the two judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Court holding that the respondent-landlady was entitled to possession of the suit property as she had proved her bona fide need under Section 16-1(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent-landlady had proved that she required the suit premises for starting business for her sons. The Courts observed that there was enough evidence on record that all the sons of the plaintiff were educated but, unemployed. The plaintiff had proved that her elder son had completed his education in computer course and had also secured the Master’s Degree in computers but, he was neither employed nor engaged in any business. The Courts found that the plaintiff was in urgent need of the suit property for commencing a computer business for her elder son. The Courts observed that due to the lack of space, the sons of the 2 plaintiff were not able to carry on any business though they were unemployed. The Courts further held that the comparative hardship, which would be caused to the landlady would be greater than the comparative hardship, which would be caused to the tenant in case, the suit was not decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts observed that the defendant/petitioner had not produced any evidence on record to show that he would suffer great irreparable loss if he is evicted from the suit property. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of bona fide requirement and comparative hardship are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that this Court may grant an opportunity to the petitioner to tender oral evidence in this case, in the interest of justice, is liable to be rejected as though the petitioner had tendered evidence on affidavit on 14.08.2009, he had failed to tender evidence and had sought adjournments on 22.09.2009 and 01.10.2009. The trial Court rejected the adjournment application on 01.10.2009. The matter was thereafter kept for hearing and in stead of applying to the Court for setting aside the order of rejecting the adjournment application dated 01.10.2009, the petitioner went ahead and the counsel for the petitioner argued the matter before the trial Court on 08.10.2009. The submission made by the petitioner in the petition that his applications for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2009 were not considered by the trial Court, is incorrect as it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that such applications were never presented in the Court by the petitioner. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the trial Court failed to grant any opportunity to the petitioner to tender evidence though he deserved that opportunity. The judgments reported in (2001) 9 SCC 117 (Kewal Krishan Versus Harnek Singh (DEAD) by LR's) and (1980) 1 SCC 17 (Dwarka Nath Prasad Atal Versus Ram Rati Devi) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4558/2009 (B.V. Smitha Rani Versus M.K. Girish) decided on 20.07.2009 is somewhat helpful to the case of the respondent. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts, they call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE