JUDGMENT ;- The respondent landlord is present by caveat.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat waives service for the respondent.

4. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement, and the suit has been decreed.

5. The tenant preferred the appeal, which has been dismissed by order dated 3112-2003.

6. The tenant is before this Court filing the present petition. The tenant's contentions as seen from the petition are as follows:

(1) The landlady filed her affidavit of oral evidence but did not prove the same in her evidence. It was mandatory to prove the signature and contents of affidavit and if that is not proved her affidavit is not evidence and has to be ignored as laid down in the case of FDC Ltd. Vs. Federation of Medical Representatives, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 327 ; [2003(2) ALL MR 510].

(2) The landlady has deposed in her affidavit about need of the suit shop block in possession of the tenant for her two sons who are Doctors and are having lucrative practice. They required the shop premises for their Hospital. The plamtiff has not examined any of her son to prove their need and the evidence of the landlady Preetam Kaur neither sufficient nor satisfactory to prove the need of her son. The landlady never issued rent receipt for the rent received and it is the case of the tenant that he had paid the rent to the landlady for which no receipt was given to him by the landlady.

(3) It is not proved that the landlady really needed the small room measuring 10 x 10 ft. in possession of the tenant for the Hospital purpose of her son, when in fact, the entire ground 11001' was in possession of her sons who are already doing business there.

7. It would be convenient to deal with the factual grounds quoted as items (2) & (3) in the foregoing paragraph first in order. and are dealt with in the paragraph to follow.

8. The First Appellate Court has discussed in paragraph 10 of the judgment at page 42 and 43 of the paper book about bonafide personal requirement. The Court has dealt with the nature of need.

9. The appellate Court has found and confirmed the finding that the plaintiff's two sons Dr. R. S. Madan and Dr. Manmit Madan need the suit premises for an Operation Theater. The Court accepted the bona fide personal requirement in the background that though entire ground 110 or. except two shop blocks. including one with defendant which are in possession of tenants. the plaintiff has proved the need of one more room for using as Operation Theater as the genuine need. The appellate Court held that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirements.

10. The finding of fact recorded in para 10 of the judgment of appellate Court is challenged on the ground of lack of adequacy of evidence.

11. The findings are not challenged on the ground of perversity or failure to consider any evidence, the question of bonafide personal requirement, and need of eviction on the ground is duty proved.

12. So far as the second aspect of hardship is concerned, the first appellate Court has discussed this aspect, and recorded a finding, in para 11 and 12 that the tenant has not proved that he has made any efforts to seek any alternate accommodation. Moreover, admittedly, the defendant's brother also does the same business. The defendant has independent accommodation for his residence and considering this aspect, the appellate Court recorded a finding that the aspect of hardship also favours the landlord and not the tenant. The finding of fact on this point is not shown to be contrary to record. Tenor of submissions does not reveal that any serious challenge is made to this finding.

13. So long the findings are not challenged as perverse or otherwise illegal, the question of sufficiency of evidence is not open for challenge in a writ petition.

14. Moreover, these grounds are not seriously pressed as much as first point discussed hereinafter has been pressed.

15. The first point noted in p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document