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 being in possession of the demised premises on rent since before it was purchased by the respondent. He denied that the respondent needed it to run a pharmacy. It was contended that in fact the son of the respondent was already running a pharmacy across the road in another premises. The need that was put forth was not reasonable and bona fide. He further contended that he was not getting any alternate shop in the locality and therefore he would be put to greater hardship if evicted from the demised premises than that would be faced by the respondent, if he was not evicted.

5. Based on such pleadings the trial court conducted the trial and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court has concurred with the observations and the conclusions of the trial court. Hence this revision.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Mustafa for the petitioner would submit that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. They have overlooked important circumstances. The conclusions have been drawn based on surmises and conjectures rather than on evidence. The fact that the son of the respondent was already running a pharmacy just across the road was not disclosed in the plaint. This material fact was suppressed to suit the purpose, which is indicative of the fact that the need that was put forth was not bona fide. He referred to the following decisions.

(1) S. J. S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others; (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 166,

(2) M/s. Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar Vs. Sow. Sulochanabai w/o Gangadharrao Wattamrao in Civil Revision Application No. 91/2021 decided on 04.03.2022

He submitted that the courts have dealt with a similar aspect of suppression of material of facts. The need therefore was not proved to be reasonable and bona fide still the courts below have taken the view which is perverse and arbitrary.

7. Mr. Mustafa would further submit that even the issue regarding comparative hardship under sub Section 2 of Section 16 of the Act was also not properly decided by the courts below. They failed to take cognizance of the fact that the entire property behind the demised premises consisting of 10,000 square feet was available to be used for the business of the respondent’s son. When the respondent himself has been running a pharmacy in the adjoining shop, its depth could have been increased by including the portion of the property purchased by him. As against this there was no evidence before the courts below to demonstrate availability of any suitable premises for use of the petitioner. Mr. Mustafa would further submit that the decisions under challenge are perverse and arbitrary and the revision be admitted. Mr. Mustafa also placed reliance on the following decisions :

(1) Rukminibai Motiram Kshirsagar (deceased) through