The landlord's bonafide requirement for personal use outweighs the tenant's claims of hardship, especially when supported by evidence of the landlord's need and the tenant's lack of a valid business license.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

3. The judgment and decree passed in Small Causes Suit No. 7/2022 dated 05/09/2018 by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal, is under challenge in the present revision application. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original nomenclature.

4. Plaintiff is the landlord, and the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises. The subject matter of suit is the shop Nos. 2 and 4 from the northern side of the commercial complex and other spaces like the godown and hall at the 1^st floor constructed over the land bearing Extension No. 38/D, Survey No. 16, admeasuring 3383 Sq.Mtrs. The plaintiff has filed suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. As per the contention of the plaintiff, he became the owner of the suit property on the basis of the deed executed by his grandfather. The suit property was also given on rent by his grandfather by entering into an agreement to defendant for 11 months, which was extended from time to time. As per the agreement, the grandfather of the plaintiff received Rs. 1,00,000/- as a deposit, and the plaintiff was getting Rs. 2486/- towards rent.

5. It is further contended by the plaintiff that though he asked the defendant to execute another agreement after the death of his grandfather, the defendant has not turned up. Thus, the defendant is residing unauthorizedly and illegally in the suit premises. Now, the plaintiff requires suit premises for his personal use, as his wife intending to start a new business. The suit is filed on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 16 (1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and for Means Profit.

6. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the suit is not tenable on the basis of an unregistered agreement. The ground of bonafide requirement is false. The defendant is running his business in suit premises, and if a decree of eviction is passed, then more hardship would be caused to the defendant rather than the plaintiff. It is further contended that the suit is filed only to extract more rent.

7. In support of the contention, the plaintiff as well as the defendant has adduced their respective evidence and also relied upon the document like agreement and notice. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant challenged the said judgment and decree in Rent Appeal bearing No. 1/2018 before the District Judge, Yavatmal, which also came to be dismissed on 06/05/2023.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Small Causes Court in Suit No. 7/2022 and in Rent Appeal bearing No. 01/2018 decided on 06/05/2023, the present revision petition is preferred.

9. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Amol B. Patil for the defendant/petitioner, who submitted that the suit is filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Initially, the plaintiff/respondent issued a notice, wherein no ground of bonafide requirement was raised. The plaintiff became an owner with his brother and sister, and they are not parties to the suit.

10. He further submitted that the plaintiff has admitted during cross-examination that he has not mentioned his bonafide requirement. The cross-examination of the plaintiff further shows that the plaintiff is not residing at Yavatmal, where the property is situated, but he is residing at Amravati along with his family members. This suit appears to have been filed solely to extract higher rent.

11. He further submitted that bank statements show that the plaintiff claimed that he had obtained the loan, but the amount shown in the statement fluctuated, and it is not a term loan. Moreover, the rent agreement is not registered, which is required to be registered compulsorily, and therefore, the said agreement cannot be considered. In the absence of a written agreement, submission of the tenant to be accepted.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the p