PREMCHAND S/O HUNDRAJ KHATRI Vs. MURTUZAKHAN RAHMANKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petition challenges two concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, namely, learned District Judge-3, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.134 of 2010 and learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Amaravati in Small Cause Suit No.26 of 2008.

(3.) The suit was originally instituted by the respondent herein as landlord against the petitioner as tenant. The suit sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord and also on the ground of illegal subletting by the petitioner. The bona fide need was stated to be not only of the landlord, i.e. the respondent himself, but also of his son, who was a family member residing with him and was of marriageable age. It was the case of the respondent that he and his son were doing business on handcart and now wanted to settle down in their business in the suit premises. It was claimed in the suit that the petitioner had already sublet the premises to one Narendra Sawarkar. It was also the case of the respondent that the petitioner was having his own separate shop and had no need for the suit premises. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court found in favour of the plaintiff both on the ground of bona fide need and on illegal subletting. The decree of eviction passed by the trial Court was, accordingly, confirmed by the lower appellate Court.