1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2856 /2009 (Shakuntalabai N. Wighe & others VERSUS Laxmibai R. Kaikade) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.H. Khobragade, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments dated 23.10.2007 and 18.04.2009. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent was the owner of the suit property and the original defendant no.1 had sublet the suit property in favour of the original defendant nos.2 to 4. The Courts have further held that the respondent-landlady succeeded in proving that she required the suit premises for her bona fide occupation. The Courts then held that the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship in case the Court refuses to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They call for no interference in 2 exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE