1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR W.P. NO.318/2011 MANISH NAGPURE ..VS.. PUSHPAK NIPANE & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri C.S.Kaptan, advocate for petitioner Shri Sharma, advocate for respondent no.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 10/3/2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the courts concurrently held that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit property from the petitioner/ and the other defendants, as the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the original defendant no.1 to 4 and 6 to 7 had sublet the suit premises in favour of the petitioner/ defendant no.5. The courts also concurrently held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he reasonably and bonafide required the suit premises for his use and occupation. The courts held that the suit property was leased out to the partnership firm of which the defendant no.2 to 4 and 6 to 7 were the partners and these defendants had sublet the suit premises illegally and unlawfully to the petitioner/ defendant no.5 who was running hotel/ Fast Food Center in the suit premises. Though the defendant no.1 to4and 6 to 7 had stated that defendant 2 no.5/petitioner was their employee and was appointed as Manager, the defendant no.5/ petitioner specifically denied that fact and pleaded that he was the sole proprietor of the business run by him in the suit premises. The courts relied on the various documents and certificates to hold that there was subletting of the suit premises by the other defendants to the petitioner/ defendant no.5. Moreover, it is necessary to note that the defendant no.5/ petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that the suit premises were never leased out to him. The courts were also justified in holding that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation and the hardship which would be caused to the plaintiff would be greater than the defendant, in case the suit was not decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The courts came to a conclusion that there was no alternate accommodation for the plaintiff in the city of Nagpur and since he had become major and wanted to start his own business, of Ice cream and Juice Shop, in the suit premises to earn his livelihood, it was clear that he required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. The courts then held that the comparative hardship which would be caused to the petitioner would have been greater as he had no other premises to start his business and there was no evidence tendered by the defendant no.5/petitioner to show that he had searched for an alternate accommodation after the 3 institution of the suit and that he had not secured any. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP