JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocates of both the sides finally with consent.

2. By way of this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner who is the original defendant is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit filed by the respondent, for his eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation of the demised premises as contemplated under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), as also the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dismissing his appeal preferred under Section 34 of the Act.

3. The demised premises is a shop admeasuring 20 feet x 10 feet which has been in possession of the petitioner since the year 1999 when one Aseer Khan was the owner. The respondent purchased it on 13.06.2012. The petitioner has been running a medical and general store in the demised premises. Averring that it was needed for the use and occupation of his son Shahabaj to run a similar business as he was a diploma holder in pharmacy but was an unemployed, the respondent filed the suit for eviction.

4. The petitioner opposed the suit. He admitted about