1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3776 of 2007. [Namdeo S/o Karuji Chhanne] Vs. [Subhash S/o Dayaram Jais] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri B. B. Raipure, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. M. Jibhkate, Advocate for Respondent. Coram: A. H. JOSHI, J. Dated: 16th January 2008. 1. This is a petition by the tenant who runs Hair Cutting Saloon in the premises of which the respondent is the owner. The order of eviction which is confirmed in appeal is under challenge in this petition. 2. The eviction is sought on two grounds i. e. one on default, and another bonafide personal requirement. 3. In so far as the ground of default is concerned, learned First Appellate Court has discussed, and 2 dealt with these aspects in paragraphs no.22 and 23. The substance of the finding is that the arrears of rent are not deposited in spite of the suit notice including interest at the rate of 15% per annum, and hence, the default, was not purged, and the ground of default has remained available. 4. In so far as the ground of bonafide personal requirement is concerned, it is held proved on the landlord's testimony 5. Consequently, what was required to be considered is the matter of hardship. The Appellate Court found that the defendant is having residential accommodation in the business locality only, and he can run the business of Hair Cutting Saloon in the said premises, this Court finds that even there is no challenge to this aspect which is dealt with in para 21 on grounds whatsoever. 3 6. In these premises, this Court finds that there is no substance in the petition, and it deserves to be dismissed. 7. By way of last submission, however, learned Advocate Mr. Raipure for the petitioner urged that recently he has come to know that the landlord does not have title to the suit property. This issue was never raised in the Lower Court, and is not agitated before this Court also, and, therefore, its cognizance need not be taken at this stage. 8. Petition does not deserve interference, and is dismissed. JUDGE Sbm