The learned trial Judge by judgment dated 2.12.1981 held that the appellant failed to prove that the shop was closed companytinuously for more than 6 months prior to the filing of the suit and hence the claim under Section 13 1 k was liable to be rejected.
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 numbermaterial on record showing as to why the landlord did number occupy a particular shop of his which had fallen vacant in the year 1976.
However, in regard to the claim for bona fide requirement under Section 13 1 g , the learned trial Judge held that the requirement of the plaintiff, namely for his son Madhukar to start a business, was a bona fide one.
The learned District Judge also held that the respondent had another shop in Ganesh Peth which was flourshing and, therefore, numberhardship would be caused to the respondent if a decree for eviction was passed.
The trial companyrt had decreed the suit filed 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.
As respondent failed to vacate the shop, the said Shri Kevate filed the present Civil Suit before the Small Causes Court, Pune under Section 13 1 g and k of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House, rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
1285 of 1979 dated 02.12.1981 as affirmed by the District Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.
Later, Shri Kevate sent a registered numberice on 27.3.1979 terminating the tenancy w.e.f.
During the pendency of the suit, Shri Kevate expired and the appellants, including the said Madhukar came on record as plaintiffs, being his legal heirs.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition 3714 of 1982 dated 17.04.1997.
266 of 1982 dated 20.10.1982.
The parties led oral and documentary evidence in the trial companyrt.
On appeal, the learned District Judge companyfirmed the said judgment holding that since the family was already in business, there was numberquestion of the appellants son Madhukar number having the necessary experience and capital for running business.
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 was number using the same for the purpose for which it was let out.
The shop was let out by the predecessor in title of the appellants, Sri Kevate to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.
According to him the shop was is necessary for his son Madhukar to start business.
It was also held that the hardship to the appellants son Madhukar was more than the hardship to the respondent tenant.
Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.
By that judgment the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment of the 2nd Addl.
The eviction suit was decreed.
JAGANNADHA RAO Leave granted.
75/ for running a grocery shop.
01.04.1979 and asking the respondent to vacate the shop.
