1. This Civil Revision Application under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) is filed by Plaintiff-landlord challenging the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12/09/2024 passed by District Judge-2, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2018. By the said impugned Judgment and Decree, the said appeal filed by Respondent-Tenant was allowed, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03/07/2018 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 267 of 2010, thereby dismissing the said suit.

2. The Revision Applicant is landlord and Respondent is tenant. The said suit was filed by the Revision Applicant for eviction of the Respondent, which was decreed granting eviction. However, it is set aside by the Appellate Court.

3. Few facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under.

3.1. The Revision Applicant filed said suit contending inter alia that premises on the ground floor of structure at City Survey No. 670 admeasuring 73 ft. 6 inch x 16 ft. 9 inch is the suit premises which is in possession of the Respondent as monthly tenant since the time of father of the Plaintiff. That monthly rent is Rs.104.25 excluding municipal tax and light charges.

3.2. It is further contended that the suit premises is given to Respondent for use as godown; however, the same is kept closed and locked by Respondent. That the electricity connection in the name of Plaintiff's father has been misused. That the suit premises are not used for the reason for which it is let for more than six months without reasonable cause. That the suit structure is an old structure constructed in stone and mud long ago (about 85 years ago). That the Respondent has taken advantage of the Revision Applicant staying out of station and has removed the roof illegally. That the suit premises has been damaged and wasted.

3.3. It is further contended that the Revision Applicant - Mr. Ajitnath was in service, who has retired in 2009 and he wants to start a business of either hardware store or hotel, for which the suit premises is most appropriate and convenient place being situated in the peth area of city. That therefore he requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for personal use and occupation and the landlord is willing to carry out necessary repairs and use it.

3.4. It is further contended that the Revision Applicant issued suit notice dated 29/01/2008 and the tenancy is terminated by end of April 2008. Therefore suit is filed under provisions of section 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘MRC Act’ for short). It is contended that partners of the Respondent firm (Tenant) are in sound financial position and therefore they have capacity to purchase property elsewhere. Despite various requests by the Revision Applicant informing the Respondent about plaintiff's bona fide requirement, the suit premises are not vacated.

3.5. It is further contended that since the suit structure is old, the Revision Applicant has received notice dated 30/03/2010 from the local municipal corporation. That the Revision Applicant is ready to demolish the structure; however, since it is in the possession of the Tenant, the Landlord is not in a position to comply with the notice of municipal corporation.

3.6. The Respondent filed written statement contesting the suit, denying the bona fide requirement. It is contended that if the nature of suit premises is considered then it is not useful and convenient for the use by the landlord. It is contended that the Respondent requires the suit premises and it is being used as godown. Non-user is denied. Other averments in the plaint are also denied.

3.7. The Revision Applicant examined Applicant No. 1 - Mr. Ajitnath as P.W.-1, a photographer as P.W.-2, a legal Officer and Managing Director of Warna Sahakari Bank (licensee of the Respondent) as P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, and a nearby shop holder as P.W.-5