LPA NO. 69/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATANT APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4074 OF 1991 Chandmal s/o. Shankarlal Varma (Since deceased through LRs.) 1. Kantilal s/o. Chandmal Varma R/o. Savedi Gaothan, Ahmednagar and others. ....Petitioners. Versus Shantilal s/o. Zumbarlal Baldota, R/o. Goddaba Galli, Karjat, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 19th September, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J.] 1. This proceeding is filed to challenge the decision in Writ Petition No. 4074/1991. The Writ Petition was filed by present appellant to challenge the decision given by 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 267/1991. The decree given to the respondents of eviction under the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 is confirmed by the learned LPA NO. 69/11 2 Single Judge of this Court. 2. Regular Civil Suit No. 461/1988 was filed by present respondent against the appellant for relief of eviction on the grounds like bonafide requirement for personal use, non user of the premises for more than six months by the tenant for the purpose for which the premises was let and nuisance. The Trial Court had granted decree on all the grounds. The District Court confirmed the decree on the two grounds like bonafide requirement and non user. The learned Single Judge of this Court has maintained the decree on both the grounds and it is held that present respondent Nos. 2 and 4 require the premises for personal use. 3. It was submitted for the appellant that during pendency of the proceeding, some portion of the building of which the tenanted premise is a part, was demolished by landlord and new construction is made by the landlord. It was submitted that now more space is available to the landlord and so he does not require the premises which is with the appellant for personal use. It was submitted that this case of the tenants is not considered in Writ Petition No. 4074/1991. A careful perusal of the judgment delivered by the Single Judge shows that this submission is LPA NO. 69/11 3 considered. 4. The landlord filed proceeding for eviction in the year 1988 and it came to be decided finally in the High Court in the year 2011. In the reported case 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 581 [ Gayaprasad vs. Pradip], the Apex Court has observed that the crucial date for deciding the bonafides is the date of application made by landlord for eviction. It is observed by the Apex Court that the subsequent events occurred, pendent lite could be relevant only if they are of such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the need. At para no. 15 the Apex Court has made following observations :- "The judicial tardiness for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady affecting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis on account of the malady of the system. It shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused." The facts of the present case, which are being mentioned LPA NO. 69/11 4 hereinafter are such that on the basis of so called new circumstances, the decree of eviction cannot be set aside. 5. The landlord has proved the case of bonafide requirement for personal use by examining the members of the family, who require the premises. The tenant failed to prove that greater hardship will be caused to him if the decree of eviction is given against him. On the other hand, the record and findings show that the tenant is a businessman, all his sons are well settled and he could have easily obtained other premises. There is admission of tenant that he has two more premises in possession where he is running the business. There is the finding that one of the two rooms which are with the tenant was not used for the purpose for which it was let for more than six months. These findings on facts given by the Trial Court are confirmed by the First Appellate Court and also by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no possibility of interference in the decision given by the learned Single Judge and so the appeal stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] LPA NO. 69/11 5 6. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the appellants prays for three months time to vacate the suit premises. Learned counsel Shri. Brahme objects to the same. 7. After considering submissions advanced, we observe that in case appellants file an undertaking to the effect that the appellants would vacate the suit premises within one month from today, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises. Undertaking shall be filed within one month from today with the registry of this Court. In case the appellants fail to vacate the suit premises after expiry of one month from today, then respondent-landlord is entitled to resort appropriate remedies as permissible in law. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/