R. K. Deshpande, J. - (1.)The Learned Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 9-3-2007, has decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 404 of 2002. The petitioner/defendant, who is the tenant has been directed to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff and enquiry into the future profits has also been directed to be made. The decree for eviction has been passed on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need. Regular Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the decree passed by the Small Causes Court has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 5-2-2010, by the Appellate Court.
(2.)The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three points (1) the landlord has given an admission that there are other properties owned by him and the said properties have not been disclosed, (2) the burden to establish the bona fide requirement is upon the landlord, however the trial Court has shifted the said burden upon petitioner and (3) no case has been made out for grant of decree for eviction and possession either on the ground of bona fide requirement or on the ground of arrears of rent.
(3.)With the assistance of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties I have gone through the evidence of landlord. The landlord has denied the suggestion that he holds any other property except the suit premises. The other properties belong to his son. The trial Court has recorded the finding that the petitioner/tenant has failed to bring on record any evidence to show, that the landlord owns any other properties. The learned counsel could not point out any such evidence brought on record. Hence, no fault can be found in the findings recorded by the trial Court, as has been confirmed in appeal.