ASHA CHANDRAKANT DEVI Vs. SHAIKH ABDUL QUADIR GUAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 8.12.1994 passed by the V Addl.District Judge, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No.556 of 1989. That appeal was filed by the present petitioners challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, dated 28.9.1989 in Regular Civil Suit No.112/1985. That Civil suit was filed by the present respondent Shaikh Abdul claiming therein that he is owner of a building constructed on C.T.S. No.67 situate at Malhar Peth, Satara and that one Chandrakant Vishnudas Devi, of whom the present petitioners are the legal representatives, was tenant of a shop tenement in the building. The landlord claimed a decree for possession against the tenant on several grounds, including the ground that the landlord needs the suit premises bona fide for his own occupation. The trial Court by its judgment dated 28.9.1989 decreed the suit recording a finding in favour of the landlord on the grounds that he needs the suit premises bonafide for himself; that the tenant has changed the user of the building. The tenant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was dismissed by the appellate court. Thus, in the present petition, the orders passed by both the courts below are challenged.

(2.) IN so far as the grounds of bona fide requirement is concerned, it was the case of the landlord that the premises are shop premises; that he is a person who has retired from service; that he is living with his son Akbar who is presently carrying on business of manufacturing and selling of masala articles in rented premises; and that the landlord needs the suit premises for setting up a retail outlet for his son's business. Both the courts below have accepted the case of the landlord and have recorded findings in his favour. In so far as the aspect of comparative hardship is concerned, both the courts have found that the tenant holds an adjoining shop and that he is not likely to suffer any hardship if a decree of eviction is passed against him.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.