1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1969 of 2008 Somnath s/o Bacchu Srivas...vs.. Arun B. Kuraskar and another. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. S. Kilor and Mr.S. S. Shingane, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram: A. H. JOSHI, J. Dated: 6th June, 2008. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. A. S. Kilor and Mr. S. S. Shingane, for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has made a grievance against the order of eviction on the ground that bona fide personal requirement has not been proved, and in addition on factual aspect averred in ground “H” of the petition. 3. It is seen that the landlord has deposed that he wants to commence grocery shop. 4. This aspect of matter proved by the landlord, is sought to be contradictory by the tenant, but the tenant in his version does not in any manner disputed the factual matter of evidence of the plaintiffs. 5. By way of additional submission the petitioner has urged that additional premises have come in possession of the landlord, for which he has 2 averred in ground “H” of the petition. 6. The petitioner was unable to show the factual foundation of such statement, as made in ground “H”. 7. On last hearing, learned Advocate for the petitioner was granted time to ascertain as to on what basis the statement is made in said ground “H”. On which, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has clarified that there is no evidence in support of the statement contained in ground “H”. 8. The landlord's bona fide personal requirement has been held in his favour, and nothing has been brought on record as to why the said finding should be considered as wrong, particularly when, the tenant has failed to contradict it by any means whatsoever. 9. Moreover, the landlord version is to be respected when he demands suit premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, the tenant has failed to bring any material on record to prove comparative hardship. 10. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out case for interference. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE j s a.