Since both these writ petitions are directed against the judgment dated 12/02/2013 passed by the Appellate Court in proceedings for eviction, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in W.P.No.1072 of 2014 is the owner of a two storied house on Nazul Plot No.10Sheet No.119B, Mouza Paratwada, out of which two rooms on the ground floor have been let out to the respondent as tenant. The respondent is running his medical shop in said premises. According to the petitioner, the respondent was liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.500/per month along with municipal taxes. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was running a shop on the southern portion of the building and said accommodation was falling short and hence there was a bonafide need of the tenanted premises for expanding his business. It was also the petitioner's case that he was a heart patient and hence was advised to shift on the ground floor of the premises. Therefore, the need for residence. Hence, notice dated 06/01/2003 came to be issued to the respondent seeking arrears of municipal taxes and as the same were not paid, proceedings for eviction were filed.

3. The respondent filed his written statement in which it has stated that he was not liable to pay municipal taxes as there was no such agreement between the parties. According to him, the petitioner had other premises available and suit had been filed merely to evict the respondent from the premises. He also referred to the fact that the plaintiff was owning a double storied shopping complex in which some shops were lying vacant.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as well as his adopted son. A medical practitioner was also examined. The respondent examined himself. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record found that the respondent was liable to pay municipal taxes in respect of the shops occupied by him. It further held that the plaintiff had proved his bonafide need for the premises and that greater hardship would be caused to him if the decree was not passed. The suit was accordingly decreed. The decree for eviction was challenged by the respondent and the Appellate Court held that the respondent was not liable to pay any municipal taxes. It confirmed the finding regarding bonafide need but however directed eviction of the respondent only from one room out of the two occupied by him. The landlord is therefore aggrieved by the partial decree for eviction while the tenant has challenged the decree for eviction as passed.

5. Shri A. S. Mehadia, learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the decree as passed on the ground of arrears of municipal taxes. He submitted that in the rent note issued to the respondent, it had been specifically mentioned that the tenant was liable to pay municipal taxes. He then submitted that bonafide need having been duly proved, partial eviction in respect of one shop could not have been directed. According to him, the tenant was having another shop premises from where the business was being run by his son while the petitioner was a heart patient and hence the need for residence as well as for business purposes ought to have been taken into consideration. He submitted that though earlier proceedings for eviction had been filed under provisions of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, same did not amount to res judicata to bar the present proceedings. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on judgments in Surajmal v. Radheshyam (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 18, Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada AIR 2003 SC 2713 and Motor Cycle House And Metro Cottage Industries, Pune & anr. v. Kamalabai Dattatraya Kale & ors. 2005 (3) Mh. L. J. 1129. He therefore submitted that the decree passed by the trial Court ought to be maintained.

6