1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1482/2011[SUKHDEORAO WASNIK ..VS.. PRABHAKAR DAHAKE] WRIT PETITION NO.1490/2011 [PRABHAKAR GAIKWAD ..VS.. PRABHAKAR DAHAKE] WRIT PETITION NO.1491/2011[HASMAT ALI IMAMBAKSH..VS.. PRABHAKAR DAHAKE] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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. Harode, advocate for petitioner Shri R.L. Khapre, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2011. Heard. Since common issues arise for determination in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The petitioners are the tenants in the shop premises of which the respondent is the owner. The respondent had filed separate civil suits against the petitioners for eviction under section 15 and section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioners were irregular in payment of rent and had not paid the rent for certain period. It was also the case of the respondent landlord that the premises in possession of each of the petitioners were required by the landlord for starting the business for himself and his three brothers. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit filed by the respondent landlord. 2 The trial court mainly relied on the admission of the landlord in each of the three suits that no rent was due and payable by the tenant/ defendant in each of these three cases. The trial court also held that the three brothers of the landlord were carrying on other occupations and therefore they did not bonafide require the suit premises for starting the business. The findings recorded by the trial court were reversed by the first appellate court in an appeal filed by the landlord. The first appellate court held that the landlord was entitled to possession of the property in view of the provisions of section 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment along with the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that the first appellate court was not justified in reversing the decree on the ground that the landlord was entitled to possession under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The first appellate court did not consider the clear admission of the landlord in the right perspective before holding that the petitioners/ tenants were in arrears of rent. The first appellate court ought to have considered the clear admission of the landlord in his cross examination to mean that the tenants were not in arrears of rent. If that was so, the first appellate court could not have reversed the finding recorded by the trial court that the tenants were not in arrears of rent. The first appellate court 3 ought to have confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the suit for possession in regard to the claim of the landlord under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The first appellate court, however, did not commit any error in holding that the landlord bonafide required the suit premises for his occupation and for starting a business for himself and his three brothers. Merely because the brothers of the landlord were carrying on some occupation at the time of institution of the suit, it cannot be said that the landlord did not intend to utilise the premises in question for business. The first appellate court rightly considered the fact that one of the brothers of the respondent intended to leave the job as soon as the premises were vacated and join the respondent in starting the business in the premises in question. The first appellate court considered the evidence which showed that the two brothers of the respondent had extremely small business premises which were not suitable for their business and the respondent and his brothers would run their business in the suit premises which were comparatively large. The finding recorded by the first appellate court in regard to bonafide need is a pure finding of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and also on the principle that the landlord is the best judge of his own need. In this case the first appellate court found that the premises in question were needed by the 4 landlord for the need of his entire family and there was nothing wrong in the desire of the landlord to earn more for his family members. The first appellate court was further justified in holding that the hardship which would be caused to the landlord in case the tenants were not evicted would be greater than the hardship which would be caused to the tenants in case they were evicted from the premises as each of the tenants had clearly admitted in the cross examination that they were the owners of premises admeasuring 1400 square feet which were barely 300-350 sq.ft. away from the tenanted premises. In view of this admission of each of the tenants in his cross-examination, it was clear that the comparative hardship of the landlord was greater than that of the tenants. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the judgment passed by the first appellate court is modified. The decree passed by the appellate court under section 16(1)(g) of the Act is confirmed. Rest of the decree is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP