IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3134 OF 2022

1. Jain Supari Centre, a Partnership Firm, through its partner Shri Shantilal Sohanlal Baid .. Petitioners

2. Jain Supari Centre, a Partnership Firm through its Partner -

Shri Shantilal Sohanlal Baid Both R/o. 521/412, Gurukripa Apartments, Lendra Park, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.

Versus

1. Shri Rameshlal Motilal Hasoriya Aged – Major, Occ. Business.

2. Shri Ganeshlal Motilal Hasoriya Aged – Major, Occ. Business, .. Respondents Both R/o. Timki, Teen Khamba, Near Hanuman Temple, Nagpur. 3. Rajendraprasad Sohanlal Baid A/a- Major, Occupation – Business, R/o. 419, Lendra Park, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.

Mr. Akshay Naik, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. S.S. Sitani, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. RESERVED ON : 05/07/2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 27/07/2022 JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

(2) The tenants are before this Court challenging concurrent decrees passed against them by the two Courts below under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, thereby directing their eviction from the suit premises. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the landlords, who had initiated the said proceedings before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur.

(3) The case of the said respondents was that being the lawful owners of Municipal House No.2 situated at Ward No.36, Mouza-Nagpur, Maskasath, Kirana Oli, Taluka and District – Nagpur, they filed a suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bonafide need. The petitioners were inducted as tenants in ground floor shop admeasuring 789 sq.ft and part of first floor admeasuring 120 sq. ft. in the said building for commercial use in the year 1990. They were inducted by Prabhadevi Motilal Hasoriya and after her death, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 became lawful owners of the said property and the tenancy was continued by executing an agreement on

01.01.2013.

(4) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that amongst his three sons, the elder son was assisting him in business and two other sons having turned major were interested in starting their own business and hence, the tenanted premises were required to start business, being suited for the said need. Similarly, the respondent No.2 pleaded that his elder son was assisting him in business while the younger son, having turned major, was interested in starting his own business and that the tenanted premises were best suited for the said purpose. On the basis of the said bonafide need projected on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, they sought eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.

(5) The petitioners filed their written statement and denied the claims made by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Small Causes Court framed points for consideration and the rival parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined four witnesses in support of their case while the petitioners examined two witnesses.

(6) On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, by judgment and order dated 10.02.2020, the Small Causes Court decreed the suit and directed the petitioners to handover vacant possession of suit premises to respondent Nos.1 and

2, within thirty days and also directed a separate enquiry to be held for future mesne profits as per Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In the process of holding in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Small Causes Court gave positive findings in their favour on the question of bonafide need, as also comparative hardship. It was specifically held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had succeeded in making out a case under Section 16(1)(g) of the aforesaid Act pertaining to bonafide need.

(7) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 34 of the said Act, before the District Court. By the impugned ju