Judgment 1 wp1226.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1226 OF 2017
Mahadev S/o. Baburaoji Pund,
Age : 62 years, Occupation : Proprietor,
R/o. "Vividha Dress", Shop No.2,
Main Road, Civil Lines, Saoner,
District : Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
Waman S/o. Keshavrao Karandikar,
Age : 78 years, Occupation: Landlord,
Main Road, Civil Lines, Saoner,
District : Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri R.M.Patwardhan, Advocate h/f. Shri S.D.Khati, Adv. for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MARCH 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The original defendant/ Judgment Debtor has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts concurrently upholding the claim of the respondent/ landlord for decree for eviction on the ground that the suit premises are required by the landlord for bonafide use and occupation.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:41:28 :::
Judgment 2 wp1226.17.odt
4. On going through the judgment passed by the trial Court, I find that the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly concluded that the plaintiff/ landlord has proved his case.
The learned Principal District Judge, while considering the appeal filed by the defendant/ tenant has independently examined the evidence on record and has recorded her findings in paragraph 8 of the judgment that the plaintiff has established that the suit premises are required by him for bonafide use and occupation. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, the learned Principal District Judge has considered the point of comparative hardships and has concluded that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if decree for eviction is not granted.
5. The petitioner/ original defendant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts which necessitates interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:41:28 :::