The court established that a landlord’s bonafide need for premises must persist until the conclusion of proceedings, and that evidence presented must substantiate this claim.

1. This application is fled under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the original defendants/tenants taking exception to the judgment and decree dated 4th January, 2022, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 112/2016 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29th July, 2016 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Shirpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 47/2007 decreeing the suit for eviction of tenants under Section 16 (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short “the Act”), is confrmed.

2. Parties are referred to by their nomenclature in suit.

3. In short, facts of the present case can be narrated as under :-

Plaintiffs are Medical Practitioners practising at Shirpur for last 30 years. The suit premises is two storied building wherein the frst foor is used for residential purpose and the ground foor is occupied for the purpose of running a clinic which is essentially a maternity, surgical and nursing home. On the ground foor, three shops are situated out of which a medical shop is run by the son of the plaintiffs. Whereas in other two shops, two tenants are inducted including defendants. Originally, Ramesh, father of defendants, was tenant in respect of the shop admeasuring 12 x 9 sq ft. wherein he used to run Tea Stall in the name ‘Sapna Tea Stall’. After demise of Ramesh, defendants, his sons, continued the said business. The suit premises was let out to the defendants on monthly rent and last rent payable was Rs.250/- per month. It is a case of plaintiffs that with change in the requirement of medical practice and for improvement in their services such as inclusion of sonography machine etc. they bonafde need the suit premises. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that their son Nikhil, after completing studies in medicine is into medical practice so also their daughter-in-law Supriya. According to plaintiffs, for the need of their son Nikhil and daughter- in-law Supriya, for separate clinical examination room, there is additional requirement of the premises by them. It is contended that for expansion of activities, plan was prepared and appropriate approvals from the Municipal Council were also obtained. It is also claimed that by notice dated 17th March, 2017, the tenancy of the defendants was terminated and since they refused to handover possession of the suit premises, the suit came to be fled.

4. Defendants, by fling written statement, denied the contentions of plaintiffs however, it is not in dispute that the defendants are the tenants of the suit premises but it is claimed that rent is Rs. 200/- per month. These defendants have raised several issues such as maintainability of the suit for non-joinder of legal heirs of deceased Ramesh and also on the ground that there are suffcient premises available for the plaintiffs for expansion of medical profession. It is stated that plaintiffs have already started pathology laboratory in the shop abutting to the suit premises. It is also stated that except for the two shops, the entire building is in possession of plaintiffs which consists of ten rooms each on the frst and second foor. According to defendants, only four persons reside in the said premises and hence there is more than suffcient space available for them and as such there is no requirement of the suit premises for them.

5. Learned Trial Court, after framing issues and according opportunity to the parties to led evidence, decided the suit by passing judgment dated 29th July, 2016 decreed suit by holding that plaintiffs required suit premises reasonably and bonafde as contemplated under Section 16 (g) of the Act. The said fnding is confrmed by First Appellate