1 WP 3424 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3424 OF 1997 Smt.Laxmibai Gangaram Patil ...Petitioner Vs. Vithal Shankar Bhoite and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Smt. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri for Petitioner Mr. Sagar A. Mane i/b. Mr. N.v. Bandiwadekar for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the landlord of the suit property. The suit property was purchased by her on 18.6.1987. The Respondents are the tenants in the said premises. Soon after the land and building along with tenant was purchased by the Plaintiff, she filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. Secondly, on the ground of arrears of rent and, thirdly, on the ground that the building is a dilapidated condition. The Trial Court and 2 WP 3424 of 1997 the Lower Appellate Court both have held that the Plaintiff has not proved these three grounds and, therefore, the suit was dismissed and appeal also has been dismissed. After the writ petition was admitted by this Court, an additional affidavit was filed by the Petitioner. In which, she has stated that since the building is in a dilapidated condition, she had applied for demolition and construction of a new building and has obtained permission and sanction from the competent authorities. In the affidavit, it is further stated that two rooms are available for occupation at the rate of Rs.400/- p.m. on rent and the owner of the said rooms has agreed to give the said rooms to the Respondents on the rent till the completion of the new building. This offer, however, is not accepted by the Respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents at length. Both the Courts have given a concurrent finding that the Petitioner has not established her case of bonafide requirement or that the Respondents-tenants have committed default for payment the rent for six months or that the building is in a dilapidated condition. Since concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Lower Courts, it will not be possible to interfere with the said impugned order. The 3 WP 3424 of 1997 Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The Petitioner can always at liberty to file a suit under section 16 of the New Rent Act if the condition of the building has further deteriorated since in the present case, the suit was filed in 1989 and more than 20 years have passed after the suit was filed. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)