9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellants for eviction of the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement and the said judgment was affirmed by the District Court. These two judgments were set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is this judgment of the High Court that is challenged in this appeal. We shall refer to the facts briefly: The suit premises consist of a shop bearing No.4 on the ground floor of a house at Pune. The shop was let out by the predecessor in-title of the appellants, Sri Kevate to the respondent on a monthly rent of ₹ 75/- for running a grocery shop. The said Kevate wrote a letter to the respondent on 8.3.1978 that the respondent had closed the shop for more than a year, and that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready in business, there was no question of the appellant's son Madhukar not having the necessary experience and capital for running business. The learned District Judge also held that the respondent had another shop in Ganesh Peth which was flourshing and, therefore, no hardship would be caused to the respondent if a decree for eviction was passed. When the respondent moved the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that there was no material on record showing as to why the landlord did not occupy a particular shop of his which had fallen vacant in the year 1976. According to the High Court, the landlord's son Madhukar could have start ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Madhukar to start a business. The High Court has reversed the said finding on the salutary ground that the landlord has not occupied the shop vacated by the tenant, namely a barber, in 1976 which he could have given to his son Madhukar to start business. In our view, the High Court was wrong in its assumption that Madhukar could have started a business in 1976 for the following reasons. Number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the landlord whose evidence was accepted by the trail court and the first appellate court. But the most important part of the evidence which the High Court omitted to consider was the following statetment of Madhukar: Why my father did not retain the premises let out to the barber, I cannot say. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
