IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1626/2011 KHOOBCHAND TALREJA ..VS.. RAMESH MULTANI AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Khati, advocate for petitioner Shri Bhangde, advocate for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 18, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first appellate court reversed the judgment passed by the trial court and held that the landlords were entitled to grant of possession under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999.The first appellate court held that the trial court ought not have rejected the prayer made by landlords. The first appellate court held that the landlords were married and they were residing in house no.269 on two floors. The first appellate court found on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record that the three brothers, their parents and the other family members were residing in house no.269 and the plaintiff no.1 was employed by his brother in Akash Textiles on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. The first appellate court observed that the partnership firm of plaintiff was dissolved on 31.3.1997 and after the firm was dissolved the plaintiff no.1 did not have any occupation / business of his own and desired to utilise the suit premises for his residential as well as business purposes. The first appellate court observed that the hardship which would be caused to the landlords would be greater in case the suit was not decreed in their favour as they had proved that they required the suit premises for their bonafide occupation. The first appellate court held that the petitioner/ tenant had not made any effort to acquire the other residential or commercial premises after the suit was instituted and hence he had failed to prove that he would suffer greater hardship in case he was evicted from the suit premises. The findings recorded by the first appellate court are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of 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 SMP