JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The petitioner is the tenant. He has challenged the decree passed against him by the courts below evicting him from the premises which was let out to him as open space comprising City Survey No. 1019 and 1020 admeasuring to an extent of 6056 sq. ft. Originally the premises was leased out to one Bagade by the father of the present respondent No. 1. It appears that the original tenant without permission of the landlord constructed a shed in the premises and started running floor mill and oil mill in the said shed. On 27th September, 1964 the aforesaid Bagade sold oil mill to Vishnu Narayan Vanarase father of the present petitioner No. 1 and Vaman Mulay. Consequently rent note was executed by Mahadev Khire, the father of the respondent No. 1 accepting them as tenant and the rent was also refixed at Rs. 150/- per annum. Said Mr. Mulay expired and father of the petitioners became sole owner.

2.On 10-1-1979 a Notice to quash was issued by Mahadev G. Khire the father of respondent No. 1 to Vishnu N. Vanarase, the father of the petitioners in respect of City Survey No. 1019/B and 1022-A/2 on the ground that the premises are required by the landlord. On 31-1-1980, the present suit was filed by Mahadeo Khire the father of the first respondent for reasonable and bona fide requirement for starting business. In the meantime Vishnu N. Vanarase expired and the present petitioners was substituted in his place. It appears that consequently by the amendment in March, 1986 the purpose of eviction has been changed from 13(1)(g) to 13(1)(l). In the meantime the original landlord died and present respondent No. 1 as legal representatives of the deceased were impleaded. The parties contested the matter on the ground that the landlord requires the land for constructing Mangal Karyalaya. Both the courts below found that the reasonable and bona fide requirement for construction of the building has been proved and eviction have been ordered. In normal situation, there is no scope for this Court to interfere on the concurrent findings on facts regarding bona fide requirement.

3.I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhakephalkar and Mr. R.L. Patil for respondent.

4.Mr. Dhakehphalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner took me through various evidence led before the Court and has tried to argue that certain conclusions arrived at by the courts below are perverse and illegal warranting interference by this Court. He has taken me through various circumstances which touches upon the reasonableness and bona fide requirement of the respondent. He has pointed out that the first respondent is an employee working in a bank. The first respondent could manage to obtain the plan for the purpose of constructing Mangal Karyalaya from the Municipality which carries so many conditions to be fulfilled. One of the conditions is that the suit premises is situated in the Industrial Zone and Mangal Karyalaya is not industry. Therefore, characteristic of the zone has to be changed under section 37 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. Conditions laid down in the permission requires cumbersome procedure. Not only that, all those procedure has to be fulfilled by the Municipality, Town Planning authority and the Government. If supposing that one of the authorities does not fulfil the requirement required to be done by them according to law, the conditions stipulated in the licence cannot be carried out. In other words those conditions which were incorporated in the permission has to be done by the third party not by the petitioner. If the condition to be fulfilled by the petitioner and he can do it by his own effort, then it cannot be said that the conditions are impossible conditions. But here in this case as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the conditions imposed for the permission are conditions which may or may not be carried out. Therefore such permission cannot be treated as a valid permissio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document