In the application for eviction, the respondent had alleged that since he was jobless and had to maintain a family of ten members and had numbersource of income, he wanted to start a kirana business in the shop in question, in which business the respondent had sufficient experience and funds to start the same.
Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was moved before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench which, by a final order, remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for companysideration afresh.
When the matter was remanded again by the High Court, the Additional Collector, Nagpur again dismissed the appeal by his order dated 22nd of July, 2005.
The case made out by the respondents in his eviction petition may be summarized as follows The appellant is a tenant in respect of a Shop Room measuring about 10 x 26 hereinafter referred to as the shop in question under the respondent for the last more than 20 years at a monthly rental of Rs.600/ payable at the end of each English Calendar month.
It was further alleged that he and his three sons required two shops for his bonafide need.
It was further directed that the appeal shall be decided in the light of the law laid down by Bombay High Court in Janba Daulatrao Borkar Vs.
Accordingly, the appellant sought for dismissal of the eviction petition.
After remand, the case was again decreed in favour of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement.
264/A 71 2 /92 93 dated 12th of November, 1999 thereby allowing the application of the respondent for grant of permission to issue quit numberice under Clause 13 3 vi of the Rent Control Order, 1949.
Again, a writ petition was filed against the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector, Nagpur before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench.
Accordingly, the appellant was directed to vacate the shop in question and as he had failed to deliver possession to the respondent, the eviction proceeding was started against the appellant on the ground of bonafide requirement.
which was decreed and possession was taken from Lal Mohd.
Rajesh Kumar Ramjiwan Agarwal 1975 MHLJ 746.
Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and after taking oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller, Nagpur, by his order dated 12th of November, 1999 passed an order of eviction against the appellant.
by the respondent and the respondent, thereafter, started using the same.
The tenant appellant appeared before the Rent Controller, Nagpur and companytested the eviction proceeding by filing a written statement, in which he had denied the material allegations made in the application for eviction.
It was specifically denied by the appellant in the written statement that the respondent bonafide required the shop in question as the respondent was already in possession of sufficient accommodation.
During the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to the numberice of the Court that a similar eviction proceeding was started by the respondent against another tenant Mr. Lal Mohd.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Additional Collector, Nagpur, a writ application was moved before the High Court, which by the impugned Judgment was dismissed inter alia on a finding that the respondent had successfully proved his bonafide requirement of the shop in question and against the said order of the High Court, this instant Special Leave Petition was filed, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel appearing for the respondent only.
Against the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector, Nagpur, again a writ petition was moved by the tenant appellant in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench.
Against the aforesaid order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur, an appeal was taken before the Additional Collector, Nagpur, which also affirmed the order of eviction passed against the appellant.
Again, by an order dated 16th of January, 2004, the High Court had partially allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 5th of November, 2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur and directed the Additional Collector to hear and decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and permitted the respondent to file reply of affidavit filed by the appellant.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th of September, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur Bench in W.P. c 5075 of 2005, by which the High Court had dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order of the Additional Collector, Nagpur dated 22 nd of July, 2005, which was filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Nagpur in Revenue Case No.
This fact was in fact brought to the numberice of the High Court and the High Court, having found it to be true, again remitted the case back to the Additional Collector, Nagpur, for companysideration afresh but after the second remand, again the order of eviction was affirmed in favour of the respondent by the Additional Collector, Nagpur.
