1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2689/ 2011 (M/S HADA BEARING & MILL STORES VERSUS RAMNIWAS JAWRILAL KABRA (HUF)) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Sharma, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8 , 2011 . None had appeared for the petitioner on 07.09.2011. Hence, the petition was adjourned for today, as a last chance. None appears for the petitioner, today also. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the impugned judgments dated 08.09.2008 and 23.11.2010. It appears that the respondent- landlord had filed a suit for eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act on the ground that he bona fide required the suit shop for the business of his grandsons Vinod and Manoj. It was the case of the respondent-landlord that his grandsons were doing business of marble in a rented premises owned by one Dilip Mahajan and Madhukar Binekar. The landlord tendered evidence on record to show that his grandsons were paying the rent of Rs.4,500/- and Rs.5,000/- per month to their landlord and, hence, the respondent required the suit premises for the bona fide need of his grandsons. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the respondent- 2 plaintiff proved that he bona fide required the suit shop for the marble business of his grandsons, Vinod and Manoj. The Courts found that the need of the respondent-landlord was genuine. Since the submission was made before the first appellate Court in regard to the tenability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners of the joint family were not joined as parties/plaintiffs, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff being the co-owner of the joint family had every right to sue for and on behalf of the joint family. It would be necessary to refer to the paragraph 6 of the judgment reported in (2004)3 SCC 178 (India Umbrella Manufacturing Company & others Versus Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt) & others) in this regard. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid reported decision that it is well settled that one of the co- owners can file a suit for eviction of the tenants in the property jointly owned by the co-owners. The Court went on to add that this principle is based on the Doctrine of Agency as one co-owner filing a suit for eviction of tenant does so on his behalf and as an agent of other co-owners. It is observed that the consent of the other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners are not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit has been filed in spite of their disagreement. The judgment supports the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, it appears that a plea against the tenability of the suit on this aspect was not raised by the petitioner in the written statement and, hence, it is raised as an afterthought. Both the Courts concurrently found that the comparative hardship to the landlord would be greater than 3 that of the tenant as the tenant-petitioner had clearly admitted in his cross-examination that no efforts were made by him to search for some other premises after the suit was instituted by the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner was living with his wife and she was the owner of some other property on Central Avenue road. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issues of bona fide need and comparative hardship are pure findings of facts based on the proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The findings call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE