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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document