The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court must consider all relevant factors, including comparative hardship, and provide necessary opportunities for cross-examination to ensure a fair and expedited appeal process in tenancy disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. Heard Mr. Fidvi Ibrahim Abid, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. A. S. Murty, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by learned District Judge-3, Nagpur dated 04.12.2019 below Exh.-39 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 49/2013 whereby learned appellate Court rejected the application filed by petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine original plaintiff.

3. Few facts would be necessary to be narrated here. They are as under.

The petitioner is tenant in shop block area 8 X 15 i.e. 120 Sq. Ft. on house property bearing Municipal Corporation house No. 7/0 + 5, survey no. 177, sheet no. 224, circle no.2, Division No.1, Ward No. 8, situated at Joharipura, Tilak Road, Mahal, Nagpur. The petitioner is a monthly tenant. His tenancy commences on the first day of English calendar month and ends on the last day of that month. The petitioner is tenant from 1982.

4. By virtue of sale deed dated 18.10.2004, the present respondents acquired the title of the property where the suit shop is situated. Thereafter, the tenancy of the petitioner was attorned.

On 16.10.2009, the present respondents filed suit for ejectment, possession and mesne profit under Section 16 (1) (g)of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999, which was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.334/2009. The suit was contested. The parties entered into witness box to substantiate their pleadings. The learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, vide judgment dated 14.12.2012 was pleased to decree the suit filed on behalf of respondents and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the suit shop block.

5. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.41/2013.

During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of document. The said application was moved on 09.10.2015. The documents were pertaining to the Bombay Shop and Establishment Certificate and From No. 20 and 21 i.e. license to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs. The said application filed on behalf of the petitioner was allowed by the learned Judge, appellate Court on 09.12.2016 in view of no objection given by the respondent/original plaintiff.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application (Exh.-21) for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed on 22.07.2016. Accordingly, following paragraphs were prayed to be inserted in the written statement.

"10. It is respectfully submitted that all allegations of plaintiffs that suit premises are bonafide required by them to start business therein, are false and concocted to the knowledge of plaintiff themselves.

11. I sit submitted that plaintiff No. 1 is having his own big residential cum commercial house at Shastri Nagar, Near Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur constructed on plot No.23.

12. It is further submitted that plaintiff No.2 is also having big residential cum commercial house at Zenda Chowk, Naik road, Nagpur. So also he has started his business of selling Pan material, cigarette, etc. under the name and style of 'Shree Narayanji Agency" at Bharat Chambers, House No.497, Ward No.36, Nehru Putla, Itwari, Nagpur. The said house is three storied building admeasuring about 900 sq.ft. plot area owned and possessed by plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 has also purchased a huge bungalow at East Wardhman Nagar, Nagpur. Thus plaintiff No.2 is having more than sufficient accommodation for his alleged need.

13. In view of above, it may be seen that plaintiffs have acquired vast accommodations and that plaintiffs will not suffer any hardship at all, in the event their claim in suit is rejected.

14. That, admitted