IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE. SIDE. SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 6085 OF 2006. Pravin Shrinivas Shetty & ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Laxmibai Chimanseth Kudale ... Respondent. Shri Shripad S. Murthy with Sapna D. Samant for the petitioner. Shri B.N. More i/b M/s Patil Gangavane for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 13.9.2006. : 13.9.2006. : 13.9.2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused petition. 2. Petitioner has suffered concurrent findings of fact whereby both the Courts below have concurrently held that bonafide need of the landlord has been established by the plaintiff. In the trial of the suit, one Prabhakar Kudale, Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff i.e. her son was examined and he has made statement reading as under: . I say that the suit premises are reasonably and bonafide required for our family members to use and occupation.I am having no businessand my mother’s family is a Joint Hindu Family, consists of 5 adult members. That the grand sonof the plaintiff and son of me namely Milind & Rohan are unemployed and he is jobless. I myself and my mother are also jobless. The entire family of the plaintiff is depend upon the income of the running business of hotel to earn our livelihood and thus, the suit premises are reasonably and bonasfide required by members of our family." On this material examination-in-chief there is hardly any cross-examination on the question of need at the instance of the petitioner-tenant. At the cost of repetition, I must mention that unemployement of the grand-son Milind has not been challenged in the cross-examination, with the result, evidence on the question of need has gone unchallenged. It is no doubt true that plaintiff was examined subsequent to the cross-examination of the said witness. At the most it can be said to be an irregularity . But, this by itself will not vitiate the judgment and decree. The defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff with the result, entire evidence of the plaintiff went unchallenged. 3. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that one of the petitioners, i.e. petitioner No.2 is staying in America, though his residential address is shown that of Pune so as to give a false picture to this Court that he is staying at Pune. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he is in the employment. He is not expected to run business of hotel. Petitioner No.3 is a power of attorney holder, who is acting for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is, thus, clear that none of the petitioners are running Hotel business in the suit premises. Both of them are affluent and needs no premises. They shall not suffer any hardship if eviction decree is allowed to operate. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the respondent states that decree has also been executed and possession stands taken from the petitioners. 4. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)