IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.541 OF 1992 Mohammed Yakub Munwar & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Kartikeshwar Balchand Choudhari & Ors. ...Respondents ...... None for Petitioners. Mr.S.D.Karwande for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. P.C. 1. None appears for the Petitioners when the matter is called out. The name of the Advocate on record for the Petitioners was notified on the Electronic Board. Even for more than 30 minutes, no appearance was made on behalf of the Petitioners. In the meantime, I had commenced the hearing of the matter with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. : 2 : 2. Having gone through the Judgment under Appeal, it is noticed that amongst others, the Appellate Court has affirmed the Plaintiff’s claim that the suit premises were required for occupation for himself as well as his family members. In other words, the issue of bonafide and reasonable requirement has been answered against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. The Court below has adverted to all the relevant aspects for reaching at this conclusion. The Court below has recorded that the family of the Plaintiff consisted of himself, his wife, three children, two sisters and one son and three children of his widowed daughter. They had only one room bearing house No.207 in their occupation admeasuring about 12’x 18’ only. Indeed, the tenant raised several issues to doubt the bonafide and reasonable requirement of the Plaitniff. All those matters have been considered by the Appellate Court in Paragraph 10 of the impugned Judgment. The view taken in that behalf is a possible view. Merely because some other view is possible on reappreciating the same evidence, : 3 : cannot be the basis to overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court so as to exercise writ jurisdiction. 3. The Court below has found as of fact that the Plaintiff had established that he had real intention to occupy the suit premises after the same were vacated by the Respondent/tenant. Even that finding is correct. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that the landlord is the best judge of his need and the need which is pressed into service was very much available and in existence. 4. Insofar as the issue of comparative hardship, the Court has considered the relevant aspects including the fact that if the tenant was required to vacate the suit premises, will have to move out along with 11 family members. But has rightly observed that the same cannot be the sole criteria for answering the issue. The Appellate Court has noted that the suit premises were let out for residential use. It is well established position that unless the tenant was to assert and : 4 : prove the fact that inspite of best efforts, it was not possible to secure another premises in the same locality, the question of answering the issue against the landlord will not arise. Applying that basis in the fact situation of the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the tenant is not in a position to secure another premises in the same locality. It is not the case of the tenant that such unsuccessful attempt was made. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. 6. After the order is dictated, the Sheristedar has invited my attention to the fact that leave note has been filed by Mr.Gorwadkar for excusing his Court appearance on 5th February 2009 and 9th February 2009. However, inspite of this leave note, Mr.Gorwardkar had made appearance in some other matter today which was also kept for hearing. No mentioning was made that he would not be in a position to attend the present matter. Inspite of the leave note now brought to my notice, : 5 : for this reason, the order already passed shall remain. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.