Bombay High Court
Gokuldas Ramchandra Diyewar vs Smt. Kamlabai Prabhakar Upadhyay ... on 3 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.7050.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7050 OF 2016
Gokuldas Ramchandra Diyewar,
Aged about 57 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o Upadhyay Niwas, Near State Bank of India,
Saoner, Tah. Saoner, District Nagpur .... Petitioner
-- Versus -
01] Smt. Kamlabai Prabhakar Upadhyay,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation : Household.
02] Rajesh s/o Prabhakar Upadhyay,
Ageda about 45 years,
Occupation : Not known.
03] Rakesh s/o Prabhakar Upadhyay,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation : Not known.
04] Smt. Anupama w/o Harish Katre,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation : Not known.
05] Smt. Sangita d/o Leeladhar Dubey,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Housewife.
All respondents No.1 to 5 are
R/o Mahajan Market, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. .... Respondents
Ms. Rajasi Mardikar, Adv. h/f Shri S.L. Kotwal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Shri V.B. Palorkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:41:56 :::
wp.7050.16.jud 2
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties at the stage
of admission.
02] This petition takes an exception to the judgment and
order dated 24/09/2016 passed by the District Judge-16, Nagpur
in R.C.A. No.78/2015 and judgment and order dated 11/12/2014
passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Saoner in R.C.S.
No.209/2012 thereby directing eviction of petitioner/tenant on
the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide need of
the landlords. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent
findings that petitioner was liable to be evicted as he was a
defaulter and landlords required the premises for their bona fide
need.
03] Relationship of landlords and tenant is not in dispute.
Petitioner has admitted that he has not paid rent from
01/04/1998 to 01/08/2000. Notice demanding arrears of rent was
issued. Petitioner did not comply with the same. The record
reveals that petitioner was defaulter and both the courts below
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:41:56 :::
wp.7050.16.jud 3
have recorded concurrent findings that tenant was liable to be
evicted as he was defaulter.
04] On bona fide need, contention of respondents was
that they need premises for their own use. Petitioner/defendant
admitted in unequivocal terms in cross-examination that plaintif
no.1 is residing in a rented accommodation. There is no whisper
in written statement or in the evidence that alternative
accommodation is available to the landlords. Since landlords
could establish that they require the premises for their own use
and proved their bona fide need, both the courts have held that
tenant needs to be evicted from the premises.
05] The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on
proper appreciation of evidence and material on record and
cannot be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
i. Writ Petition No.7050/2016 stands dismissed.
ii. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
*sdw JUDGE
