1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.113/2011 SHRIKRISHNA PANDURANG UGOKAR ..VS.. MURTUZAKHAN RAHMANKHAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Purohit, advocate for the petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2011. Heard Shri Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant/ tenant. A suit was instituted against the defendant by the respondent/ plaintiff under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his bonafide need. The plaintiff pleaded that he was a patient of heart disease and therefore, his wife Salimabi and daughter Taimina were doing embroidery business and also business of selling ladies garments and articles at their residence. According to the plaintiff, since his house was on the backside of the Khan Market, the same was not visible to the customers and hence with a view to have prosperity in the business of his wife and daughter, the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bonafide need. The plaintiff pleaded that his wife and daughter had no source of earning. The plaintiff amended the plaint during the pendency of the proceedings and disclosed that his daughter Taimina was married, but his other daughter Rukayya also started doing the business with her mother and required the suit premises. 2 The defendant/ petitioner denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that they required the suit premises. It was the case of the petitioner that he was running a saloon in the premises since last 23 years. It was pleaded that the plaintiff did not occupy and utilize another shop which was located on the first floor of the house and the shop was leased to another tenant two years earlier. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the landlord has succeeded in proving that he was entitled to grant of possession under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The courts found that the plaintiff was suffering from heart disease and his wife and daughter had to do embroidery work and carry on business in ladies garment in their house which was on the backside of the Khan Market and was not visible to the customers. The courts found that though Taimina was married, the other daughter – Rukayya who had similar knowledge had started the business with her mother in the house. The courts held that it could not be said that the need of the landlord was not genuine because a shop was leased out to another tenant two years prior to the institution of the suit. Even otherwise, the shop on the first floor could not have been useful for the business of the wife and daughter of the respondent, so also the respondent was an heart patient and could not have climbed up and down the stairs even if he wanted to do so. The courts found that the respondent was desperately in need of a shop which had a road frontage and the action on the part of the respondent in seeking possession of the property from the 3 petitioner was bonafide. As regards the comparative hardship, the courts held that the tenant was aware that one day or the other he may be required to arrange for alternate accommodation for running his business and since the landlord needed the premises for his bonafide occupation, the hardship which would be caused to the landlord would be greater. Moreover, it is necessary to note that the tenant had not stated in his evidence that he had searched for another place in the nearby locality for running his saloon but he did not secure the same. In fact, the petitioner/ tenant admitted in his cross-examination that the house of the plaintiff where his wife carried on the business was on the backside of the Khan Market and the house of the plaintiff was not easily visible to a passerby . He also admitted in his cross-examination that not a single shop block from the ground floor of Khan Market was in occupation of the plaintiff and the health of the plaintiff had deteriorated more since 1985 as he had suffered a heart attack. In such facts and circumstances, the courts did not commit any error in holding that the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation and that the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant in case a decree for possession was not granted in his favour. The judgments passed by both the courts are just and reasonable and 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 SMP