Mahadev S/O Baburaoji Pund vs Waman S/O Keshavrao Karandikar
2017 Latest Caselaw 716 Bom

 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.

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..