(1.) These are two Writ Petitions filed by the landlord (original plaintiff) against two tenants (original defendants), challenging orders passed by the Court of District Judge-10, Nagpur, whereby appeals filed by the respondents/tenants have been allowed and decrees of eviction passed against them by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, have been set aside. The suit premises are two shops in a building known as 'Sai Sadan', on Plot No.1, Nandanwan Layout, Main Road, Nagpur, which is a building owned by the petitioner-landlord. Of the four shops facing the road in the said building on the ground floor shop nos. 2 and 4, are in occupation of the respondents/tenants herein. The petitioner-landlord filed suits for eviction in October, 2009, against the respondents/tenants in respect of the aforesaid two shops on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent. The Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur (trial Court) passed decrees of eviction against the respondents/tenants on 07-12-2011, thereby allowing the suits filed by the petitioner and directing the respondents/tenants to handover the possession of the suit property within one month to the petitioner, in addition to other ancillary directions. The respondents/tenants filed appeals before the Court of District Judge, Nagpur (appellate Court). By the impugned judgments and orders the appeals filed by the respondents/tenants were allowed and the decrees passed in favour of the petitioner were set aside. The two Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the said judgments and orders passed by the appellate Court in favour of the respondents/tenants.
(2.) Mr. Anil Kilor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the two Writ Petitions, submitted at the outset that the petitioner-landlord was not pressing the challenge in respect of decrees on the ground of arrears of rent. The appellate Court had found that the notice issued by the petitioner-landlord on the ground of arrears of rent itself was defective and that the petitioner-landlord has chosen not to challenge the said finding of the appellate Court. Therefore, the challenge in the present Writ Petitions became limited to the question of eviction on the ground of bona fide need.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had analyzed the pleadings, evidence and material on record in the proper perspective to come to the conclusion in favour of the petitioner-landlord in respect of the said two suit shops on the ground of bona fide need and that while upsetting the finding of the trial Court, the appellate Court had committed a grave error in appreciation of the evidence and material on record, leading to perverse findings against the petitioner-landlord. It was submitted that the appellate Court decided the appeal in favour of the respondents/tenants in the teeth of settled principle of law that the landlord is the best judge of his/her need and that the Court cannot supplant it's view as regards the need of the landlord. It was submitted that the findings rendered by the appellate Court would show that the appellate Court in the impugned judgments and orders had taken into consideration the material on record to reach findings as to how the landlord could satisfy his need or that of his daughter-in-law by continuing to carry on the business from the existing premises along with the two shops out of four shops that were already vacant. It was submitted that the approach adopted by the appellate Court was unsustainable and therefore, the impugned judgments and orders deserve to be set aside and the decrees granted by the trial Court deserve to be restored. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Anand S. Lad vs Amira Abdul Razak and others reported at, 2014 3 MhLJ 218, Manohar Auto Stores, Amravati and others vs Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah reported at, 2010 3 MhLJ 331 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery & Co. reported at, 2000 1 SCC 679 and Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil vs Mohammad Gudusaheb reported at, 2003 3 SCC 101.