1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 310 of 2011 IN Writ Petition No. 1621 of 2011 [decided] [Radhikasharan Bhagwandin Gupta Vs. Ashok Vitthaldas Dawda & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.M. Ahirrao, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. A.M. Ghare, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 6. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND U.V. BAKRE, JJ. DATE : 02nd August, 2011. 01. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record annexed to the Letters Patent Appeal and forming part of the Writ Petition. 02. Respondents-landlords had sought leave to terminate tenancy of the appellant-tenant on the grounds available under Clause 13 (3), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order, 1949. 03. The landlords succeeded in Rent Controller's Court as well as the First Appellate Authority on the grounds, except default in payment of rent. 04. After hearing parties, we find that 2 only ground, namely bona fide personal requirement, assumes prime importance. Both Courts are concurrent on the point of bona fide personal requirement. 05. This aspect was agitated before learned Single Judge, and as the appellant-petitioner did not find favour before Single Judge and petition was dismissed, he is before this Court in present Letters Patent Appeal. 06. Learned Adv. Mr. R.M. Ahirrao for the appellant was called upon to explain as to how the finding recorded by First Appellate Court in para 4 of its order, inter alia, holding that the tenant has alternate accommodation in the same town, apart from the landlords' bona fide personal need having gone unchallenged, was challenged before the learned Single Judge. 07. Learned Advocate Mr. Ahirrao has taken this Court through the body of Writ Petition, and in specific, contents of paras 15, 16 and 17 thereof. 08. On a threadbare scrutiny of averments contained in the Writ Petition, we find that the fact-finding against the tenant on the point of his family members being in possession of alternate accommodation in the same town is not disputed, muchless challenged by specific averments, such as being perverse, or otherwise illegal. 3 09. In this background, we see on grounds, whatsoever, available to the appellant to urge before this Court that the learned Single Judge has erred in any manner, muchless touching the error of jurisdiction. 10. We, therefore, find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|