Sajid Hasan S/O Shakir Husain vs Kamlabai W/O Kanmaljit Lunawat
2016 Latest Caselaw 932 Bom

            J-wp6676.14.odt                                                                                                1/3   


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                                            
                                       WRIT PETITION No.6676 OF 2014




                                                                             
            Sajid Hasan s/o. Shakir Husain,
            Aged about 53 years,




                                                                            
            Occupation : Business,
            Priprietor of Optic Palace, Walker Road,
            Mahal, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur,
            R/o. 106, Panpa Minar Apartment,
            Chhindwara Road, Byramji Town,




                                                          
            Nagpur.                                                                    :      PETITIONER
                                 
                              ...VERSUS...

            Kamlabai w/o. Kanmalji Lunawat,
                                
            Aged about 73 years,
            Occupation : Household,
            R/o. House No.372,
            Ward No.32, Walker Road,
      


            Mahal, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur.                                               :      RESPONDENT
   



            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Mr. V.R.Thote, Advocate for the Petitioner.
            Mr. Alok Daga, Advocate for the Respondent.





            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 28 MARCH, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

J-wp6676.14.odt 2/3

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant in

shop block, situated on the ground floor of house bearing No.372,

Ward No.29 (New Ward No.32) at Walker Road, Mahal, Nagpur

has challenged legality and correctness of the impugned judgment

and order dated 19th April, 2011 passed by the Court of Additional

Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur and the order dated 19 th

August, 2014 passed by the Court of District Judge-10, Nagpur. By

the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2011, learned Additional

Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur has decreed the suit filed by the

respondent for ejectment, possession and money claim and this

judgment and order have been confirmed by the First Appellate

Court by the order passed on 19th August, 2014 in Regular Civil

Appeal No.268/2011.

3. The suit was filed by the respondent on the ground that

the shop block (hereinafter referred to as the, "suit shop") was

required by her for bona fide need of her husband and her son who

were not having any permanent job. The learned Judge of the

Small Causes Court upon consideration of the evidence available on

record found that on the one hand the respondent proved her

contention that the suit shop was required for bona fide use of her

husband as well as her son, on the other hand found that the

respondent himself admitted that from the suit shop the optical

J-wp6676.14.odt 3/3

business being carried on by the petitioner was not being run by

him personally and that he has engaged somebody to carry on the

same on his behalf and even his wife has retired as a teacher

thereby indicating that the petitioner was not really interested in

carrying on the business from the suit shop. These findings are

based upon the evidence available on record. Even the First

Appellate Court has found, upon consideration of the entire

evidence brought on record by the parties, that at the time of

passing of judgment and decree by the trial Court, the respondent

was owning only the suit shop and had no other premises from

which her husband and son could have started their business.

These findings being based upon the evidence available on record, I

do not think any scope is left for making any interference with the

impugned judgment and decree, in exercise of supervisory

jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. There is no substance in the petition and it deserves to be

dismissed.

4. Writ Petition is dismissed.

5. Rule is discharged. No costs.

JUDGE okMksns