The court emphasized that a tenant must prove efforts to find alternative accommodation to establish greater hardship, and the landlord's bona fide requirement must be prioritized.

JUDGMENT :

In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 25^th September, 2018, passed by the learned District Judge-3, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/original plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No.166/2012 dated 18^th July, 2017. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, vide order dated 18^th July, 2017, had dismissed the suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff for possession of the tenanted premises in possession of the non-applicants/ defendants on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement.

2. The facts are as follows:

In this judgment the parties shall be referred by their nomenclature in the plaint. The applicant shall be referred as the plaintiff, and the non-applicants shall be referred as the defendants. The premises, admeasuring about 114.4 sq. ft., situated on the ground floor of the Municipal Corporation House No.307, NIT Plot No.71, Ward No.30, Bhavsar Chowk, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur, shall hereinafter be referred to as the “suit premises”. The defendants were inducted in the suit premises way back in 1990 as a tenant. The suit premises is a shop. Initially, the defendants were doing the business of selling school bags, and now they are doing the oil business from the suit premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit premises consist of ground plus one floor. On the first floor of the suit premises, there is a lodge known as Vishranti having nine rooms. The said lodge is run by the sister-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and other members of the family, including the sister-in-law, are residing jointly. It is stated that, in order to complement to the business of the lodge, the plaintiff wants to start the business of the restaurant on the ground floor. On the ground floor, one shop in the line of the suit premises facing the road is in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff needs 1000 to 1100 sq. ft. area for starting the restaurant. The plaintiff has no premises in his possession to start his restaurant business. The suit premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff for starting his restaurant business. The defendants were requested by the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises. The defendants did not pay any heed. It is submitted that the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship, if a decree is not passed in his favour. On the other hand, it is contended that the defendants would not suffer any hardship, because the commercial premises are easily available in the locality.On these averments, the plaintiff prayed for a decree.

3. The defendants resisted the claim. The defendants have admitted that they are the tenant of the suit premises. However, the defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the requirement of the premises for starting the restaurant business. It is contended that the plaintiff is having sufficient premises in the suit premises as well as in other buildings in the vicinity owned by the family. The plaintiff can very-well start his business there. The requirement is not reasonable and bona fide. The defendants have no alternative premises for doing their business. Their livelihood depends upon the income from the business carried on from the suit premises. The plaintiff is financially well off. He is in the business of jewellery. If the decree for eviction is passed, then they would come on the street. They have no alternative premises. They would suffer greater hardship in case a decree for possession is passed.

4. The parties adduced the evidence to support their rival contentions. The learned 2^nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his requirement of the premises. The plaintiff filed the appeal against this judgment and decree. The learned District Judge-3, Nagpur, has re