IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3294 OF 1993 Vishwanath Ramchandra Basutkar & Ors. ..... ..Petitioners V/s Gajanan @ Ganpat Manikchand Gandhi & Ors. ..... .Respondents. Mr.Rajesh S. Patil, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Hiranandani h/f Mr.C.G.Gavanekar, for the Respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 30th November, 2009. PC: Heard. The present petitioner is original defendant against whom a decree for ejectment and possession has been passed in suit filed by the respondent-landlord. The landlord claimed possession on the ground that he requires the suit premises for his bonafide personal use and occupation. In addition other grounds were also pressed in service. However the trial Court has decreed the suit on the ground of the landlord’s need being bonafide and requirement being for his personal use and occupation. After recording finding that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if decree for eviction is not passed vis- a-vis hardship caused to the tenant in the event if decree is passed. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit by contending that he has retired from Pune Municipal Corporation as Driver in the year 1980 and he has two grown up sons who were at the relevant time aged 24 and 27 years. The landlord was getting about Rs.273/- per month by way of pension. His both sons were unemployed. A son by name Mukesh who is educated upto Xth standard was desirous of starting grocery business 1 in the suit premises and hence with a view to start the business the landlord was in need thereof. It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the landlord was staying in tenanted premises which comprise of two rooms at Pune whereas the suit premises are situated at Bhor and the petitioner/tenant has been using the same for his tailoring shop for last more than 20/25 years on monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The trial court held that need of the plaintiff-landlord was reasonable and bonafide and thus decreed the suit. The tenant carried an appeal before the district Judge and the District Judge concurring with a view taken by the trial court dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that courts below have not properly appreciated the comparative hardship and have recorded an incorrect finding. It is then submitted that though respondent retired in the year 1980 he served notice in the year 1982 and instituted the suit some time in the year 1984 and this delay by itself would reveal that the need of the landlord is not bonafide. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner had moved an application before the first appellate court with a view to bring on record the alleged subsequent event. However first appellate court did not pass any order on the said application nor has the said application been dealt with by the first appellate court in its judgment. 4. Perusal of the judgment impugned in this petition does reveal an endeavour on the part of courts below in trying to compare the financial status of the landlord on one hand and tenant on the other hand obviously with a view to find out as to in whose favour would lie the hardship. On the basis of findings and material on record having found that the landlord’s monthly income is hardly Rs.273/- per month by way of pension and that his sons were not gainfully employed has 2 recorded finding in favour of landlord. Other considerations are also borne in mind such as desire of the landlord to start grocery business at Bhor at which place the landlord does not have proper access whereas the tenant on account of his settled business over years can get suitable accommodation and hence concluded that more hardship would be caused to the landlord in the event if decree for possession is refused. 5. In so far as the attempt on the part of present petitioner to bring on record what is termed as subsequent event by moving an application dated 12.12.91 wherein it is sought to be pointed out that the landlord has constructed about 208 sq. mtrs. of structure at Bhor. Suffice it to point out that though an application appears to have been moved way back in the year 1991 in an appeal of the year 1990 the same does not appear to have been pressed in service and it seems to be lying in the record with the court till decision of the appeal. There is absolutely no consideration in regard to the said application in the judgment obviously for the reason that the petitioner must not have pressed the said application at the time of final hearing of the appeal. As such just because the application has been filed in the year 1991 seeking to bring on record what is termed as subsequent event which challenges the bonafide need of the landlord cannot be looked into at this stage when the said application was neither pressed nor argued at the time of decision of the appeal. I have perused the impugned judgment. The view taken by the appellate court below after concurring with the finding of fact recorded by trial court does not call for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any patent illegality. On the contrary a possible view of the matter has been taken. Lastly it is submitted that the suit premises could be divided and portion of it 3 could be allotted to the landlord which would satisfy his reasonable bonafide need of space for personal occupation. Suffice it to state that the said submission was not advanced either before the trial court or before the first appellate court. Nowhere in the application, written statement or the judgments even the dimension of the suit premises are referred. In the absence of any positive material on record in that regard it would not be feasible to consider the said submission. In the result writ petition is dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is carrying on business in tenanted premises and thus needs reasonable time to vacate. In his submission grant of six months would be reasonable. The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondent. However having regard to the fact that for last more than 20/25 years petitioner is in occupation of the business premises I direct that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of six months from today subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioner that on or before expiry of six months he shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent. Petitioner shall also file an undertaking that till he vacates the premises petitioner shall clear all arrears if any, and continue payment of rent/compensation till he vacates the premises. Said undertakings to be filed in this court within a period of two weeks from today. Writ petition stands dismissed. 30.11.2009. 4