1 wp 2453.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2453 OF 2010 Smt. Abedabi Hashmotulla .. Petitioner Versus Runja Kondaji Wakchaure .. Respondent Shri S. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. S. Bedre, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The original tenant has died and the writ petition being prosecuted by the legal representatives. 2. The present respondent had filed suit for possession on the ground that the respondent is landlord and the tenant has committed default in payment of rent, so also on the ground that the respondent needs the said premises for his bonafide personal use. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for eviction on both the counts. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 2 wp 2453.10 3. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had properly observed that the present respondent/landlord had earlier filed a suit for possession on the ground that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises. The same was dismissed. The respondent in his cross examination has admitted that as earlier suit is dismissed, the present suit is filed. In view of that the Trial Court has rightly observed that it is the only desire of the landlord and not bonafide and genuine need. The learned counsel further contends that the landlord had nowhere pleaded that there are 10 members in the family and this ground could not have been taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion of bonafide requirement. 4. Shri Bedre, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the legal heirs cannot prosecute the petition, as they did not reside in the suit premises and the cause to sue does not survive. The learned counsel further contends that the Appellate Court has observed that during the pendency of appeal also, the rent amount was not deposited regularly by the tenant. So also the landlord does not have any other house of his own in the city of Sangamner and resides in the rented premises at Mumbai. In 3 wp 2453.10 view of that no error has been committed by the Court while passing the decree for eviction. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. It has been observed by the lower Appellate Court that the landlord has to reside in Mumbai in a rented premises and that the landlord does not have any house of his own in the city of Sangamner. As such has rightly come to the conclusion that it is the bonafide need of the landlord to occupy the suit premises. The said finding cannot be faulted with. Even it has been observed that the rent is not deposited by the tenant regularly, even during the pendency of appeal. The question of hardship also has been considered by the lower Appellate Court, as the plaintiff does not have any other house, to reside in the said city. Even the report of notice of appeal shows that the tenant was not residing in the suit premises, but the notice was served at other place. In view of above conspectus, no error has been committed by the lower Appellate Court in allowing the appeal. The writ petition as such, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11