Judgment This is a tenant's revision. On 15th October, 2011, after hearing the respective counsels, it was directed that the matter would be finally heard and decided at admission stage. 2. The status of the parties, landlord being plaintiff and tenant being defendant, is not in controversy. Hence, they are referred as Landlord and tenant for convenience. 3. Landlord Prakash (expired on 17.4.2003) instituted Regular civil Suit No.64/2001 for eviction of the defendant/tenant from the ground floor premises/shop CTS No.2017-B, leased to tenant @ Rs. 250/-per month. 4. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit on bonafide requirement on 22.2.2005. The defendant/tenant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.94/2005 before the learned District Judge at Jalgaon and on 27.12.2010, the appeal was rejected and consequently, both the orders are assailed by the tenant/defendant as revision applicant. 5. Petitioner, tenant No.1-A died on 21.10.2011 while petitioner No.2-B Raju attained age of majority in the year 2011. 6. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (for short, CJJD) On the pleadings of the parties, framed issues below Exhibit-12 as under: ISSUES FINDINGS 1) Do plaintiffs prove that suit shop is required by them for Proved their bonafide use? 2) To whom among the greater hardship will be caused if the decree of To plaintiffs eviction is refused, rather than awarding it? 3) Do they further prove that the defendants are in arrears Negative of rent? 4) Are they entitled to decree Proved of possession as claimed? 5) Are they entitled to a Only to the extent rent deposited decree of arrears of rent and in the court to what extent? 6) What order and decree? As per final order. 7) Learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, after decree of eviction being questioned, framed the following points. Points 1) Do plaintiffs (respondents) prove that, the suit shop is required by them for their bonafide use? 2) To whom greater hardship will be caused if the decree of eviction is refused rather than awarding it? 3) What order? findings Yes To Respondent (original plaintiff) As per final order. 8. After death of Prakash Wani, the landlord, his widow Smt.Sunita, minor son Nachiket and minor daughter -Pallavi are brought on record. 9. Satish Kashinath Wani. Brother of landlord, stepped in witness-box. He asserts that Prakash was his elder brother. Smt. Sunita owns and conducts a shop, viz. "Prakash Opticals". He resides jointly with Smt. Sunita. 8. After death of Prakash Wani, the landlord, his widow Smt.Sunita, minor son Nachiket and minor daughter -Pallavi are brought on record. 9. Satish Kashinath Wani. Brother of landlord, stepped in witness-box. He asserts that Prakash was his elder brother. Smt. Sunita owns and conducts a shop, viz. "Prakash Opticals". He resides jointly with Smt. Sunita. Prakash Opticals is conducted at Navi Peth in CTS No.2036. He accepts that the suit premises and CTS No.2036 belongs to the joint family located and having three roads at east, south and north. There are total 17 rooms in the suit premises let out to different tenants. 10. Prakash, the landlord, had filed eviction proceedings on the ground of personal bonafide requirement and his inability to conduct the business for want of accommodation and he needs the suit premises for personal user honestly. 11. The defendant/tenant informed that the suit premises is not bonafide required by the landlord. The landlord has, in his own premises, a shop under the name and style "Prakash Opticals", a portion of the premises at first floor was let out to Balwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon. The landlord owns another premises CTS No.2036, from which substantial portion is in user of the landlord and some portion is vacant. The landlord has various other premises in the city of Jalgaon. 12. Mr. PM Shah, learned Sr.Counsel for the revision applicant/tenant criticized the concurrent findings on the ground that the courts were expected to adjudge the evidence and it should not be a smoke screen. There was no explanation offered by the landlord to satisfy his reasonable need. In the judgment of the first court, in paragraph 10 and 11, there is no proper discussion about bonafide requirement to the landlord, nor reasons are assigned for the same. The discussion of evidence of Satish, that property bearing No.139 (CTS No.2036) belongs to Satish alone, is contrary to the record. He says, the question of hardship has to be weighed with intensity and need of both. But, both the courts did not browse the evidence in proper perspective and committed fundamental error on findings and appreciation of evidence. The courts lost sight of impact of Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Hardship of tenant was also expected to be addressed by the appellate court and the same is demonstratively speculative. 13. Mr. Dixit, learned Sr. The courts lost sight of impact of Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Hardship of tenant was also expected to be addressed by the appellate court and the same is demonstratively speculative. 13. Mr. Dixit, learned Sr. Counsel for the landlord submits that on 3rd February, 2001, eviction suit was filed by Prakash and he expired on 17.4.2003. Consequently, Satish, his brother, has filed affidavit-in-chief on 24.7.2004. According to him, reference in the petition, that premise needed for personal user of Prakash, will have to be considered as need of his legal representatives including his widow. He did not dispute that Smt. Sunita is carrying on business of Prakash Opticals in CTS No.2036 and certain part of the premises is let out to other tenants after present eviction proceedings. 14. Learned Sr. Counsel has canvassed that the expression "for his own use" has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the matter of Jogindar Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal- 2002 5 SCC 397 in paragraph 13 thereof. He, therefore, reiterates that the expression "for his own use" covers the requirement not only of Prakash, but also of his emanations, the legal representatives. The need of the dependent of the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. 15. Both the learned Sr. Counsel accept that the scope of revision is limited. However, if a speculative or finding, contrary to the pleadings or evidence, is demonstrated, the Court has power to scan the evidence. 16. Consequently, analysis of the evidence of Satish Wani and Pesumal, the tenant, is carried. 17. Satish says, the suit premises is bonafide required for the legal representatives of Prakash as for want of accommodation, they are not in a position to carry business. In the cross-examination, he accepts that he resides jointly with family of Prakash, same was the position when Prakash was alive. Prakash Opticals is the business conducted by Smt. Sunita in CTS No.2036. The building is three-storied, having two accesses towards east and south. At the ground floor, there are six rooms, forming two blocks. In the cross-examination, he accepts that he resides jointly with family of Prakash, same was the position when Prakash was alive. Prakash Opticals is the business conducted by Smt. Sunita in CTS No.2036. The building is three-storied, having two accesses towards east and south. At the ground floor, there are six rooms, forming two blocks. Four rooms of the second floor and six rooms of the first floor and three rooms at the ground floor are in his occupation while in rest of the three rooms, at the ground floor, it is a tenant by name "Quality Wines", Back side court yard (Wada) is in the user of the family. Building of the suit premises belonged to his brother and after his death, it is transferred in the name of his legal representative. Prakash has inherited the same from his father. He accepts that the building where the suit shops are in existence, even as on the day belonged to joint family, as there is no effective partition. The building of the suit premises is surrounded by three roads; three rooms at the first floor are recently let out to Balwant Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit on monthly rentals of Rs.4,400/-. In one of the rooms/shops, optical shop, under the name and style of "Suman Chashmaghar" is conducted by Smt. Yogini Chandankar since 15 years. He conducts photo-state business in CTS No.2036 while Smt. Sunita carries business in Prakash Opticals, he is helping her. He did not dispute that Smt. Sunita is physically capable to attend the court, however, due to business activities, she did not attend the court. 18. Mr. Dixit, learned Sr. Counsel, relying upon the judgment of the Apex court in the matter of Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr. Vs. Uttam Chand and Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 490 , canvassed for the purposes of bonafide requirement of landlord, effect of subsequent events needs to be evaluated on facts of each case. In the said case, the tenant desired to inform the Court that son of the landlord had acquired degree in engineering and got employment in an Indian company and settled in U.S.A. and consequently, the alleged bonafide need and requirement, for which the application was filed, had become nonexistence, thereby dis-entitling the plaintiff from any relief. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 7, as under- "7. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 7, as under- "7. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period." 19. In paragraph 8, it was observed -We cannot forget that while considering the bonafides of the need of the landlord the crucial date is the date of the petition. 20. In the matter of Gayaprasad Vs. Pradip Srivastava, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 604 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed -"landlord should not be penalized for the slowness of the legal system. Crucial date for deciding the bonafides of the requirement of landlord, is the date of his application for eviction. Subsequent events may in some situations be considered to have overshadowed the genuineness of landlord's need, but only if they are of such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether." 21. The learned Sr. Counsel then reiterated to the judgment in the matter of Bardinarayan Chunilal Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada - (2003) 2 SCC 320 , in which nature and attributes of comparative hardship was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 22. The evidence referred herein before suggest that the landlord immediately before institution of the suit somewhere on 1st March, 2000, leased another shop to Smt. Yogini Chandankar in the same premises CTS No.2017-B, who is conducting business in the name of "Suman Chashmaghar". 23. 22. The evidence referred herein before suggest that the landlord immediately before institution of the suit somewhere on 1st March, 2000, leased another shop to Smt. Yogini Chandankar in the same premises CTS No.2017-B, who is conducting business in the name of "Suman Chashmaghar". 23. Two tenants on ground floor of CTS No.2017B, i.e. "Welcome Tailor" and "New India Cloths Stores", have vacated the premises in the year 2005 and these two premises on the ground floor were again let out to Balwant Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, in addition to the three rooms on the first floor. Copy of photograph was placed on record. It is also informed, in the year 2009, an old tenant -Bagmar vacated four rooms from the same suit premises CTS No.2017-B while another tenant Gurav has also vacated one room. These five rooms are enjoyed by the landlord. There is no denial to these subsequent developments from the landlord Smt. Sunita or her witness Shri Satish, nor any affidavit is tendered in the present proceedings controverting these aspects. 24. The eviction is sought in terms of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereafter to be referred to as the Rent Control Act), which reads as under : "16 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of section 25, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the court is satisfied - (g) that the premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust." 25. Section 16(2) of the Rent Control Act, commands as under : "16(2) No decree for eviction shall be passed on the ground, specified in clause (g) of sub-section (1), if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it." 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bardinarayan, while referring to identical provisions in the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, concerning corresponding section 13 (1)(g) and 13(2), have held: "In a way, Section 13(2) acts as a proviso to Section 13(1)(g); the former having an overriding effect on the latter. The burden of proving availability of ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) lies on the landlord; the burden of proving greater hardship so as to deprive the landlord of his established right to seek eviction lies on the tenant. Section 13(2) falls more appropriately within the domain of equitable or social justice. Section 13(2) obliges the court, in spite of the finding as to reasonable and genuine requirement having been arrived at in favour of the landlord, to weigh in scales playing the hardship which would result to the landlord in case of denial of eviction in one balance pan and the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant in case of his being evicted in the other and then find out judiciously which way the balance tilts. An empty truism cannot be hardship. A failure of the landlord to make out a case for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) is not a hardship to the landlord; so also on a case for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) having been made out, the fact that the tenant will be liable to be evicted is not by itself hardship to tenant. A mere wish or desire of the landlord to acquire possession over the tenancy premises cannot be said to be a bona fide and reasonable requirement. Requirement implies an element of necessity. The necessity is a necessity without regard to its degree. For the purpose of section 13(2), the degree of urgency or the intensity of felt, need assumes significance. It is a judicious process of finding out, as far as practicable, and then making a comparative measure of the two degrees, which is involved in arriving at a finding on comparative hardship." 27. The tenant in his evidence has illustrated that apart from the suit premises, he does not own any premise of himself or on rental. He informed in paragraph 6 that the suit premises is not required reasonably and bonafidely to the landlord for business purposes. There was no such need existed before the suit, at the time of the suit and even subsequently. He informed in paragraph 6 that the suit premises is not required reasonably and bonafidely to the landlord for business purposes. There was no such need existed before the suit, at the time of the suit and even subsequently. There is no reason to file eviction suit. The tenant has accepted that he resides at Sindhi colony in his own premises. 28. The issues Nos.1 and 2, as framed by learned CJJD and its answers in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 are to be seen. "Indeed, the discussion in paragraph 10 and 11 revolve to the rentals and the arrears. Whether it existed and the conduct in remittance of rent including notices. In paragraph 13, the learned Judge has observed, contrary to the record, " "The legal heirs of the plaintiff are also contended in their evidence that they want to run their business. They have no alternate place to run their business." This evidence firstly is not of any of the legal representatives of Prakash; secondly, Satish does not utter that for conducting business, two shops are required to him. In paragraph 14, the learned Judge observes about the stand raised by the tenant/defendant. Landlord's starting optical business in his own place and first floor is let out to Balwant Credit Cooperative society. The learned Judge has again committed an error by observing that the house CTS No.2036 consisting of three floors belong to the witness Satish. Satish nowhere canvassed to this effect. The learned Judge then quoted the reported judgments and reached to the finding to answer the issues in the affirmative. Thus, nakedly, the learned CJJD, did not discharge his obligation to discuss the evidence and to dwell upon bonafide need of the landlord whether reasonable or whether there was already available premises to the landlord., impact of the premises got vacated by the landlord, the available additional premises with the landlord. He lost sight that it was obligatory for the landlord to disclose in his pleadings and also evidence (Examination-in-chief) that he owns other premises capable of being utilized for the requirement pressed into service in the suit premises and to explain that in spite of ownership, the requirement sought against the tenant would be surviving. 29. The first Appellate Court has formulated two points, illustrated above. 29. The first Appellate Court has formulated two points, illustrated above. In Paragraph 17, he informs to whom greater hardship will be caused, if the decree of eviction is refused, rather than awarding it. According to him, the suit premises is needed to the widow, as she has responsibility of two minor children. She might be thinking to expand her original business or to start a new business in the interest of her minor children. Of course, she is best judge to know her requirement. Hence, he felt that greater hardship is likely to be caused to the respondent/original plaintiffs, if the decree of eviction is refused, rather than awarding it. These observations on the vital point of compliance or non-compliance of Section 16(2) of the Rent Control Act, are perverse, speculative and not in conformity to the evidence adduced. The learned Judge, under the peculiar facts of the case, was expected not to gloss over the stark reality and to reach to myriad reasons at a tangent, without any foundation for the same. 30. I am constrained to concede to the criticism that the learned first Appellate court did not address hardship of tenant in fact situation. 31. It was expected of both the courts to evaluate the business background of the parties; the availability of accommodation with either parties; extent of direness or present need for eviction. It was expected of both the courts to evaluate, in the event of eviction decree, it would be the tenant, who will be on the streets, rather than the landlord, who has substantial available accommodation and has for earnings, let out part of the suit premises at exorbitant rates. The fact that the tenant could have shifted to other premises was ought to have been considered. But, without visiting these events, in tune with the adduced evidence, a shaky finding of bonafide requirement or hardship of the landlord, is recorded. 32. It is quite clear, the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to advise him as to what he should do or what he should not. However, requirement of a premises to any business for bonafide use or for expansion of business should flow in pleadings and evidence. Given latitude to the term "for himself" used in the pleadings to be applicable to Smt. Sunita, still fact remains, Sunita has already existing opticals business in CTS No.2036. However, requirement of a premises to any business for bonafide use or for expansion of business should flow in pleadings and evidence. Given latitude to the term "for himself" used in the pleadings to be applicable to Smt. Sunita, still fact remains, Sunita has already existing opticals business in CTS No.2036. There is nothing in the evidence of Satish that the suit premises is required for expansion of business or that Sunita has to shift from existing shop to the suit premises. In the absence of these logical requirements, the decree of eviction recorded by both the Courts warrant interference. 33. The sequel of events illustrated above of two tenants' vacating the suit premises and letting out three rooms to the credit cooperative society, referred above, defuse and shrink the loud claim of the landlord under the title "reasonable or bonafide requirement." 34. During the course of hearing, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the tenant/revision applicant, on instructions, on 24.1.2012 informed that the tenant is desired to pay enhanced rent for the suit shop @ Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) per month, effective from 1st February, 2012. 35. On 25th January, 2012, a Pursis on affidavit was tendered by the tenant, script disclose, that they are willing to pay enhanced rent of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand) with effect from 1st February, 2012. Mr. Dixit, learned Sr. Counsel for the landlord, did not comment on such offer of the tenants. 36. Taking survey of above facts, the Revision is allowed. The eviction decree in RCS No.64/2001 by learned CJJD, Jalgaon, confirmed in RCA No.94/2005 by first Appellate court, is set aside. No costs. 37. In the light of statement on affidavit from the respondents/tenants, the tenants to pay monthly rentals @ Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand) with effect from 1st February, 2012 and the landlord to pass appropriate receipt.