1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2010 Shankarrao Dnyanba Vibhute, Age 67 years, Occ. Trade, R/o Jayshree Electronics, C.T.S. No.3281/B, Galli No.3, Agra Road, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Jayraj Yashwant More, Age 56 years, Occu. Labour, 2. Mohan Yashwant More, Age 53 years, Occu. Labour. Both at serial No.1 & 2 R/o Plot No.13, Mohana Niwas, Siddhartha Nagar, Chitod Road, Dhule, Taluka & District Dhule. 3. Kishore Yashwant More (died), through his heirs - 3-A) Smt. Aashabai w/o Kishor More, Age 52 years, Occu. Household, 3-B) Kiran Kishor More, Age 27 years, Occu. Service, 3-C) Nitin Kishor More, Age 25 years, Occu. 3-D) Kum. Puja d/o Kishor More, Age 23 years, Occu. Household, No.3A to 3D R/o Galli No.3, Lohar Galli, C.T.S. No.3281/B Opposite Manohar Theater, Agra Road, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. 2 4. Sunil Yashwant More, Age 41 years, Occu. Labour. 5. Sanjay Yashwant More, Age 36 years, Occu. Service. 6. Mukesh Yashwant More, Age 31 years, Occu. Household. 7. Kokila Yashwant More, Age 37 years, Occu. Household Respondent Nos.4 to 7 R/o Plot No.93, Siddhartha Nagar, Chitod Road, Dhule Taluka and District Dhule. 8. Smt. Hirabai w/o Kanchanrao Bhorate, Age 50 years, Occupation Household, R/o C/o Lal Darawaja, Sarvajanik Hindu Dharamshala, At Post Surat No.3, Surat (State of Gujrat) 9. Smt. Ushabai w/o Nanasaheb Patil, Age 45 years, Occu. Household, R/o C/o Mr. Nanasaheb Sukdeo Patil, R/o Maharashtra Housing Colony, Room No.866/A, Near Water Tank, Satpur, At & Post Satpur, Nashik, District Nashik. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th November, 2010 Date of reserving judgment : 22nd November, 2010. Date of pronouncing judgment : 29th November, 2010. 3 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 101/1988, recorded by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule and confirmed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal No.64/2007 is questioned by the tenant, challenging orders of eviction from suit shop. The contractual relations between the parties and the description of the suit shop is not in controversy, as the petitioner has occupied it since 1972, conducting business of electrical goods. The landlord canvassed that the petitioner was in arrears and the suit shop is bonafidely required for family members of the respondent/ landlord. 3. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel, while elaborately arguing the matter, submits that the respondent/ landlord has several premises and requirement projected is malafide with a pretention to eject from premises by any means, petitioner would be sufferer of livelihood as the shop is situate in a densely populated 4 business centre. The comparative hardship ought to have been taken into consideration as the premises of petitioner though owned by him is far away and without any connectivity to business activities. Consequently, more hardship would be caused to the petitioner since suit shop is the only earning source for his livelihood. The petitioner is not in a financial well placed position to take a new shop in the vicinity. The landlord, who needed the premises should have been examined and for such omission, the proceedings will be vitiated. 4. In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. Shah relied to the judgment in the matter of Nandlal Goverdhanlal and Co. and others Vs. Samratbai Lilachand Shah (1980 Mh.L.J. 867). The learned Single Judge observed that though the words used in Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act import ”for occupation by himself” and apparently restrictive, they in fact, if properly interpreted in the context of scheme of the Act, indicate that when a landlord requires the premises for occupation by members of his family or persons who are otherwise dependent upon him, it must mean that it is for occupation by himself, but the requirement must be by the landlord though it may be for occupation by himself or by members of his family. There must be a nexus between the interest of the landlord 5 and the occupation of premises by himself or by somebody else. The bonafide requirement is in the first place, a state of mind though it may be something more. The landlord has to step in witness box. 5. This view of the learned Single Judge has not been approved in the judgment of the Division Bench reported in the matter of Nathulal Gangabaks Khandelwal and others Vs. Nandubai Bansidhar Khandelwal and others reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 253). The Division Bench endorsed that if the factors of bonafide requirement can be established by any other evidence, than that of the landlord, by putting on record circumstances which sufficiently indicate that the landlord requires the premises bonafide for his use and occupation, it is not necessary for the landlord to enter witness box and examine himself. 6. Learned counsel for respondent/ landlord submits that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge confirmed by two Courts. The need of the landlord has been properly explained and appreciated based on coherent evidence. It is not imperative that the landlord should have examined Mukesh, who was serving at Nasik. Plaintiff No.2 was competent to explain need of plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.4. Even if the plaintiff/ landlord No.1 runs a rickshaw 6 or plaintiff No.4 has to conduct a tape-recorder repairing shop, however, that does not mean that they have no need to carry business in their own premises. Learned counsel submits that, bonafide requirement of suit premises by landlord being a finding of fact, recorded by final fact-finding Court, need not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction (2003 Mh.L.J. 52 – Kantilal Ravji Mehta and another Vs. Sayarabai Chhaganlal Karing). 7. Mr. Shah though contended that the first appellate Court decree is based on no discussion of evidence, however, I do not agree to the same. The learned Judge has scanned the evidence. It was not imperative for him to have referred to various properties possessed by the landlord or to have dissected minutely to the need of the landlord in comparison with the hardship of the tenant/ petitioner as evidence indicated the subjective satisfaction. 8. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, the evidence was also scanned. At paragraph Nos.53, 63, 72, 73 of the petition, it is brought on record that tenant was conscious about the family members of the landlord to be in service at other places or one of them is plying rickshaw. In spite of availability of adequate premises in the vicinity, the petitioner/ tenant did not advert and venture to get such premises. It is pertinent that one of 7 the premises at 50 ft. away of Mr. Gindodiya in Pushpanjali Market was informed to the petitioner by notice dated 4.7.1987. However, the petitioner remained in slumber and now wants this Court to believe that the eight rooms which he possessed of his own, will not meet requirement of his business being far off to the business atmosphere. Evidence illustrate, nearby residence of the petitioner, there is garage and few shops. His premises is not far away from main road. 9. The principles of bonafide requirement can be crystallized as follows : (a) The landlord is the best Judge of his own requirement for residential or business purposes and has complete freedom in the matter. Courts need not dictate him, how he should live, or carry which vocation. (b) Unless proved otherwise, the reasonable and bonafide need of the landlord, if supported by material evidence on the record, has to be respected. (c) Even if some premises owned by the landlord is available, but occupied by other tenants, in such circumstances also, ownership of the other premises, that itself cannot be the reason to discard the present need of the landlord, specially when it is proved that the premises in question is needed at the relevant time of filing of the petition. (d) It is true that the bona fide need or genuine need of the landlord must not be farce and/or a just cause to 8 evict the tenant for other ulterior purpose. In the present case, as noted above, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the need of the landlord is not reasonable or bona fide or it is for any ulterior motive.” 10. Both the Courts have rightly evaluated the evidence. It is apparent that the landlord/ respondent has emerging need to start business for one of the landlord. This has been substantially established. The comparative hardship will be more leaning and tilts in favour of the landlord than the petitioner/ tenant. 11. The scope in the revision is limited. Still I have analysed the evidence. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the orders under challenge. Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE