JUDGMENT :

Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur dated 10th January, 2022 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 250/2019 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant upholding the eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2015 dated, 15th May 2019.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent-landlord has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2015 seeking eviction decree against the petitioner-tenant in terms of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (‘Rent Act’). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the Trial Court. The plaintiff-landlord is the owner of three storied house property situated at Central Avenue, Nagpur which is specifically described in para one of the plaint. The said building consists of ground, mezzanine, first, second and third floor. The defendant is the tenant of a shop premises situated on the ground floor admeasuring 177 sq.ft. area. The defendant is running business in the said premises since last 40 years. The tenancy commences from the first day of each month as per English calendar and ends on the last date of the respective month. The agreed rent of suit premises was Rs. 350/- per month including Municipal Taxes.

4. The entire building is possessed by plaintiff landlord, except suit shop situated on the ground floor. The plaintiff is doing business of lodging, boarding and running a restaurant in said property in the name and style of “M/s. Malhotra Brothers”. The suit shop being part of the ground floor, the plaintiff requires the same for his bonafide use and occupation. The plaintiff intended to convert suit shop into conference hall by making suitable alteration and renovation, for expanding business activity. The conference hall would be used for meetings, seminars, training programs parties etc. The availability of conference hall would be an additional feature for the lodging business. The plaintiff is keen to expand his business by constructing conference hall at the place of suit shop. The plaintiff has prepared a plan for renovation of ground floor area. The plaintiff time and again requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises, however later did not. Precisely, it is plaintiff’s case that he requires suit premises reasonably and bonafidly for his own use and occupation.

5. The defendant-tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in between them. There is no dispute about the location of suit premises which is a ground floor shop admeasuring 177 sq. ft. Moreover, there is no dispute on the point of quantum of rent. It is defendant’s case that since last 40 years, he is using suit premises for business activity. Defendant has denied that plaintiff requires suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his personal use and occupation. It is stated that the landlord does not require suit shop for erecting conference hall. According to defendant, plaintiff owns other properties within the Nagpur city from which he can very well satisfy his need. It is contended that the defendant’s children are settled abroad and he is the only earning member of his family. His entire livelihood is depending on the business run in the suit shop. The defendant has tried to search another premises in the Central Avenue area but he could not. It is contended that no similar premises is available in the said vicinity. The defendant would submit that if decree of eviction is passed, he would suffer greater hardship. On the other hand, the plaintiff has several premises and therefore he would not suffer hardship in case of refusal of eviction decree. The defendant also took a plea that the suit premises is situated in