The landlord must prove bonafide requirement and address the hardship of the tenant under Section 16(1)(g) and Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

This is a tenant's revision. On 15th October, 2011, after hearing the respective counsels, it was directed that the matter would be finally heard and decided at admission stage.

2. The status of the parties, landlord being plaintiff and tenant being defendant, is not in controversy. Hence, they are referred as Landlord and tenant for convenience.

3. Landlord Prakash (expired on 17.4.2003) instituted Regular civil Suit No.64/2001 for eviction of the defendant/tenant from the ground floor premises/shop CTS No.2017-B, leased to tenant @ Rs. 250/-per month.

4. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit on bonafide requirement on 22.2.2005. The defendant/tenant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.94/2005 before the learned District Judge at Jalgaon and on 27.12.2010, the appeal was rejected and consequently, both the orders are assailed by the tenant/defendant as revision applicant.

5. Petitioner, tenant No.1-A died on 21.10.2011 while petitioner No.2-B Raju attained age of majority in the year 2011.

6. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (for short, CJJD) On the pleadings of the parties, framed issues below Exhibit-12 as under:

ISSUES FINDINGS

1) Do plaintiffs prove that suit shop is required by them for Proved their bonafide use?

2) To whom among the greater hardship will be caused if the decree of To plaintiffs eviction is refused, rather than awarding it?

3) Do they further prove that the defendants are in arrears Negative of rent?

4) Are they entitled to decree Proved of possession as claimed?

5) Are they entitled to a Only to the extent rent deposited decree of arrears of rent and in the court to what extent?

6) What order and decree? As per final order.

7) Learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, after decree of eviction being questioned, framed the following points.

Points

1) Do plaintiffs (respondents) prove that, the suit shop is required by them for their bonafide use?

2) To whom greater hardship will be caused if the decree of eviction is refused rather than awarding it?

3) What order? findings Yes To Respondent (original plaintiff) As per final order.

8. After death of Prakash Wani, the landlord, his widow Smt.Sunita, minor son Nachiket and minor daughter -Pallavi are brought on record.

9. Satish Kashinath Wani. Brother of landlord, stepped in witness-box.

He asserts that Prakash was his elder brother. Smt. Sunita owns and conducts a shop, viz. "Prakash Opticals". He resides jointly with Smt. Sunita. Prakash Opticals is conducted at Navi Peth in CTS No.2036. He accepts that the suit premises and CTS No.2036 belongs to the joint family located and having three roads at east, south and north. There are total 17 rooms in the suit premises let out to different tenants.

10. Prakash, the landlord, had filed eviction proceedings on the ground of personal bonafide requirement and his inability to conduct the business for want of accommodation and he needs the suit premises for personal user honestly.

11. The defendant/tenant informed that the suit premises is not bonafide required by the landlord. The landlord has, in his own premises, a shop under the name and style "Prakash Opticals", a portion of the premises at first floor was let out to Balwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon. The landlord owns another premises CTS No.2036, from which substantial portion is in user of the landlord and some portion is vacant. The landlord has various other premises in the city of Jalgaon.

12. Mr. PM Shah, learned Sr.Counsel for the revision applicant/tenant criticized the concurrent findings on the ground that the courts were expected to adjudge the evidence and it should not be a smoke screen. There was no explanation offered by the landlord to satisfy his reasonable need. In the judgment of the first court, in paragraph 10 and 11, there is no proper discussion about bonafide requirement to the landlord, nor reasons are assigned for the same. The discussion of evidence of Satish, that property bearing No.139 (CTS No.2036) belongs to