:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2008 Gangadhar Virbharappa Ghuli .. Petitioner. Vs. Ankush Ashok Lade .. Respondent. Mr.P.J.Das for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against concurrent findings of the court below by which a suit for eviction instituted by the petitioner-landlord came to be dismissed. The landlord sought possession on the grounds of bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent of the suit premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, confined the challenge against the findings on the point of bonafide requirement of the suit premises. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is well settled that the landlord is the best Judge of his residential requirement and has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to indicate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. In support of this :2: :2: :2: proposition he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prativa Devi Vs. T.Krishnan Prativa Devi Vs. T.Krishnan Prativa Devi Vs. T.Krishnan 1987 DGLS 321 1987 DGLS 321 1987 DGLS 321. He submitted that merely because the landlord secured possession of two other tenaments it cannot be a ground to deny decree of eviction against the respondent-defendant who desires to have possession of the tenament in question as it suits his requirement better. I perused the judgment and other material placed before me so also the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. It reveals from the record and the impugned judgment that the landlord had suppressed from the court that he got possession of two other tenaments and that he was in possession thereof at the relevant time. This fact was not disclosed by the landlord in his pleadings either contending that those two tenaments were either not suitable and, therefore, he is seeking possession of suit tenament or on the ground that he needs the suit tenament as an additional premises. The courts below have considered this aspect in proper perspective. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below and more particularly in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the appellate court’s judgment. In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed. :3: :3: :3: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)