FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1601/98 ______________________________________________________________________ ________ Office Notes,Office Memoranda Court's Judge's Orders of Coram ,appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders None for the petitioner None for the respondent Coram : Anoop V.Mohta,J. Date : 16th October,2008. P.C. 1] None for the petitioner. 2] The petitioner/tenant has challenged the concurrent findings of fact of two Courts that the respondent /landlord needs the premises for bonafide use and occupation and greater hardship will be caused to him if decree is not passed in favour of original plaintiff landlord . 3] There is no challenge by the landlord in so far as dismissing his case of non-payment of rent for more than six months . Therefore, the challenge by the petitioner /tenant is restricted to the bonafide requirement of the landlord/ respondent. 2 4] Both the Courts after considering the evidence led by the parties concurrently viewed that the plaintiff/landlord has proved the case of his bonafide need as he wanted the premises for his own use and occupation. The landlord is in occupation of a small room at ground floor ,that itself cannot be said to be adequate and sufficient for the landlord to start his business. The personal requirement of the landlord and basically the additional accommodation is a desire and wish of the landlord . The tenant cannot compel him to do the business in a particular area and in particular premises.The premises whether adequate or not to run the business is the landlord's lookout and not that of the tenant. The Courts also observed that the two sons of the plaintiff /landlord were unemployed and the existing accommodation is not sufficient . In this background and in the facts and circumstances of the case ,and as both the Courts recorded the findings with regard to the bonafide need of the landlord I see there is no reason to interfere with the same. Therefore,taking all this in to account the petition is dismissed . As none appears for the petitioner the order will take effect after three months. (Anoop V.Mohta,J.)