Point of Law : Eviction Decree - High Court in revisional jurisdiction should not re-appreciate the evidence as if in the First Appeal and enter different finding though another finding might also be possible.

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicants', Regular Civil Appeal No.60 of 2018, directed against the eviction decree, dated 14th March, 2018 under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was dismissed on 25th September, 2019; against which this revision, is preferred.

Facts, of the case are as under:

2. Let me refer the parties as per their status in the suit, i.e., plaintiffs and defendants. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2010 to recover possession of the suit shop premises on the ground that premises are reasonably and bonafide required for starting an eatery/hotel and arrears of rent. Suit premises are, two shops situated at CTS No.105, Jogalekar Wadi, Ambedkar Chowk, Daund; mentioned in paragraph 1A and 1B of the plaint. Suit shop 1A is admeasuring 382 sq.ft. at ground floor where the defendant no.1 is running grocery shop and shop no.1B admeasuring 332 sq.ft. on the first floor, where the defendant nos.2 and 3 are running photo shop. On 6th May, 2010, plaintiffs terminated the tenancy and demanded possession of the suit shops, which defendants did not surrender. Plaintiffs' case is that they were running a hotel at Village: Kashti, Taluka: Shrigonda, which they had shut and shifted to Daund. That family members, who are eleven in numbers intent to start hotel in the suit shop premises, which is in the market and thus, it is most ideal location. Plaintiffs pleaded their need, is genuine. Plaintiffs pleaded, defendants had at their disposal, suitable property at Survey No.105/A-1/22/2/1 having commercial potential and pending suit, defendants sold part of the property to M/s. Chaitanya Developers, for the consideration of Rs.1,12,50,000/-. Thus, it is contended, that if the decree of possession is not passed in favour of the plaintiffs, greater hardship would be caused to them. Defendants denied need and requirement of the plaintiffs is genuine. They submitted that plaintiffs have other properties at Baramati and additionally, have property at Daund being CTS Nos.1826 to 1830 where they are running business of, 'lodging and boarding'. Contention is that, plaintiffs can start their hotel/ eatery in the said property.

3. The learned trial Court upheld the plaintiffs' genuine need and partly decreed the suit. However, decree was refused on the ground of arrears of rent.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Courts below concurrently held that pending suit, defendants/tenants, sold part of their property to M/s. Chaitanya Developers only after seeking permission for its change of user. Finding is rendered, that the, property sold by the defendants, has had commercial potential and it was located in market area. In fact, defendant no.1 admitted in the evidence, that part of the property, i.e., Plot No.1 is yet in their possession. Undoubtedly, evidence of defendant no.1 has established a fact that plot of land (Plot No.2) sold by them, has been also used for construction of shops. To arrive at this finding, Courts have relied on the evidence of shop inspector, defendant no.1, besides, title documents, in respect of the property CTS Nos.1826 to 1830. As against this, both the Courts, rendered a finding of fact, that plaintiffs have established their reasonable and genuine need for the suit premises. Defendants countered the need of the plaintiffs, by contending that plaintiffs are in possession of the property CTS Nos.1826 to 1830 where they are conducting business in the name of M/s. Samarth Lodge. However, evidence shows, this property was purchased, by Prabhakar Jogalekar, paternal uncle of Plaintiffs Nos.2, 3 and 4 in his name. But, it appears in Municipal record, name of the plaintiffs is shown as 'Manager' of the Samarth Lodge. Thus, relying on this fact, defendants contended, the plaintiffs have adequate and suitable premises, at their disposal for starting the hotel and, therefore, their need for the suit premises is neither reasonable nor bonafide. Yet, the Courts, found that the property CTS Nos.1826 to