-WP3134.2022.doc

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,

Both R/o. Timki, Teen Khamba,

Near Hanuman Temple, Nagpur.

.. Respondents

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.

PAGE 1 OF 17

-WP3134.2022.doc

(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

PAGE 2 OF 17

-WP3134.2022.doc

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

PAGE 3 OF 17

-WP3134.2022.doc

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