1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 525/2008 (Smt. Ayodhyabai wd/o Bajranglal Agrawal vs. Radheshyam Gokulchand Bagdiya and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. N S Bhattad Adv. for petitioner Mr. C A Joshi, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: A H JOSHI, J. DATED: 7th April, 2008. *** 1. The petitioner-herein is a tenant who has suffered order under clauses 13(3), (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order. 2. The Rent Controller found that the bona fide personal need was not challenged. 3. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, recorded a finding in affirmative on the point of tenant being a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. The change of use from residential to commercial purpose by the tenant was also held to be proved. The need of the landlord of demolition and re-construction is also proved. 4. The order was challenged in appeal. The Appellate Authority has reappreciated the entire evidence on record and upheld the order passed by trial Court in 2 relation to ground under sub-clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause 13 (3) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order. This order of Appellate Authority is challenged in this Petition. 5. The grounds raised in the petition, as can be seen and as urged is that the order of Rent Controller is illegal since the service of suit summons was not proved and that the order is ex-parte. While this ground is raised, it is not denied that the petitioner/tenant had appeared and filed written statement and participated in the hearing. This ground is, therefore, untenable. 6. After hearing both the parties, it is seen that the tenant has participated in the proceedings and has cross-examined the witnesses. It cannot be made out as to how the petitioner claims that the proceedings were taken against her exparte. 7. It is also alleged that need of reconstruction of house is neither pleaded nor proved. It was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the entire building is constructed about 60 years back in bricks and lime and necessary alterations, additions and reconstruction cannot be carried out without vacating the same. 8. The fact that tenant has secured alternative accommodation was also pleaded and proved by bringing on record the sale deed of property purchased by the 3 tenant. 9. On the basis of record, this Court finds that the petitioner has raised a totally untenable grounds that there did not exist any such pleadings as to various grounds of eviction. 10. In these premises, the manner in which the tenant is pursuing the cause and raising grounds are not just proved to be erroneous. But it seems she persists on leading the Court in an incorrect manner. 11. Even today, learned Advocate for petitioner had informed the Court that new facts are brought on record by the landlord in the affidavit-in-reply by way of placing on record copy of sale deed (Annexure 9 ) to the reply. This submission of the landlord was scrutinised. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and it is seen in the judgment of the first Appellate Court, more particularly in Para no.8 thereof that this aspect has been dealt with and the document which now learned Advocate for petitioner states that is brought on record for the first time was on record and has been discussed and dealt with. 12. The aforesaid background is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the petitioner wants to make out a case out of figment of imagination, and no factual foundation. 4 13. In the above background, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed with costs. JUDGE sahare