JUDGMENT :- The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4926 of 2006 are the legal heirs of original plaintiff (landlord), who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 261 of 2002 before Small Causes Court at Nagpur, seeking eviction of the respondent-Wamanrao under section 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act) i.e. because of bona fide need. The suit was decreed by Small Causes Court and the respondent-Wamanrao then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2005 before Ad hoc Additional District Judge at Nagpur. Vide judgment and order dated 22-8-2006, that appeal has been allowed. The Appellate Court has found that though the landlord proved bona fide need, the finding reached upon consideration of aspect of comparative hardship required it not to grant a decree for eviction. This appellate judgment is questioned by landlords. The respondent-Wamanrao has filed Writ Petition No. 3303 of 2008 contending that the finding of bona fide need upheld by the Appellate Court is erroneous and perverse.

2. I have heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the landlords and Shri Shelat, learned counsel for the tenant.

3. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that bona fide need is found to be concurrently established by both the Courts and hence that finding cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. According to him, when bona fide need is established and landlords have no other premises to start their own business, the decree of eviction cannot be denied only because of the finding that more hardship will be caused to the tenant. His contention is, such hardship is not proved and in present circumstances also not very relevant and could not have been used by Appellate Court to reverse the decree of eviction. He has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Yogesh Dattaram vs. Shrikrishna Shriram, reported at 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 684, in support of his contention. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil vs. Mohammed Gudusaheb, reported at AIR 2003 SC 1634, to urge that some inconvenience to tenant is not a hardship relevant under the provisions of section 16(2) of the Rent Act. He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Yadvendra Arya vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, reported at AIR 2008 SC 773, particularly para 13 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn extensively from its earlier judgment in the case of Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal, reported at 2002(5) SCC 397. His contention is, the earlier presumption of Rent Control Legislation being heavily loaded in favour of tenant has now weakened and in the process of interpretation such need of landlord needs to be given primacy. He has contended that otherwise as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court there, the provisions of section 16(2) of the Rent Act may be required to be branded as unreasonable. He points out that the proceedings already filed before the Rent Controller under clause 13(3)(vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order) were withdrawn and there was nothing with the Appellate Court to show that same were pending. Question of said proceedings being saved by section 58(2) of the Rent Act does not arise at all.

4. Shri Shelat, learned counsel has pointed out that the tenanted premises with landlords consist of total four shop blocks and out of the same, two are given to a company by name M/s B. R. Patel and Company. He states that M/s B.R. Patel and Company has been inducted 15 years after tenant Wamanrao and premises with them are much bigger. He has invited attention to pleadings in plaint and defence in written statement to support this. According to him, the landlords, in order to show bona fides, ought to have taken action against said tenant M/s B. R. Patel and Company also. In any case, the landlord could have demanded one shop block from M/s B. R. Patel and Company

Click Here to Read the rest of this document