wp4340.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4340/2011 Vishnu Ramchanda Mankar -vs- Parasram Tulshiram Wadatkar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Vyawahare, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaidya, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 08.11.2011. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Courts, it appears that both the Courts were justified in holding that the respondent-landlord was entitled to possession of the suit property under Section 16 (1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Both the Courts concurrently held that the need of the respondent-landlord was bona fide as he wanted the suit premises for starting the business for his son, who was a mechanical engineer and was unemployed. There was absolutely nothing on record to show that the son of the respondent was not educated as claimed by the respondent or was not unemployed. In this background, both the Courts rightly held that the respondent was entitled to a decree of possession under Section 16 (1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Both the Courts were also wp4340.11.odt 2/2 justified in holding that the comparative hardship of the landlord would have been greater than the comparative hardship of the petitioner-tenant. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of bona fide need and comparative hardship are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE