1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.880 OF 2011 (CHANDRAKANT S. RAO..VS..RAJESH G. MUNDHADA.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.S.D.Khati, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant/ tenant. A suit was instituted by the respondent/ landlord for seeking possession of the suit property from the petitioner under Sections 15 and 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. According to the respondent, the petitioner was a defaulter and had not paid the rent in spite of issuance of the notice. The respondent pleaded that he required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation as the respondent and his wife were doctors by profession The respondent pleaded that he had done his masters degree in Radiology and his wife has done her masters degree in Pathology and they wanted to open Pathology/ Radiology Clinic / Hospital in the suit premises. The petitioner denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the defendant was a defaulter and the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. 2 Both the Courts, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the respondent had succeeded in proving his bonafide need. The Courts observed that the plaintiff and his wife were doctors by profession and the suit premises was situated in a commercial locality and the same could have been useful to the plaintiff for opening Radiology/ Pathology Clinic. The Courts held that assuming that the plaintiff had obtained possession of another tenanted premises during the pendency of the proceedings, it could not be said that he did not require the suit premises for his boanfide occupation. The space required for the Radiology/ Pathology Clinic would be huge and even if another tenanted premises were obtained during the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff would have required the suit premises as well as other premises for starting the clinic. As regards the ‘comparative hardship’ it was held by both the Courts that the defendant had admitted in his cross examination that there was another shop in the name and style of S. Rao Tailors at Subhash Road, Shantikunj Building, Nagpur and this admission, according to the Courts, showed that there was alternate accommodation available to the defendant. Since the plaintiff and his wife were doctors by profession and since they required the premises for their bonafide occupation, the Courts held that the hardship which would be caused to the plaintiff would be greater than the hardship which may be caused to the tenant in case the suit was not decreed. Though the trial Court has not specifically framed the issue of ‘comparative hardship’ the trial Court has specifically dealt with the said issue by rendering the judgment on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties 3 on the said issue. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of bonafide need and issue of comparative hardship are pure findings of fact 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 is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..