(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8305 OF 2009 1. B. Thawardas and Company, Tapi-Nagar, Yawal Road, Bhusawal, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon, through petitioner nos.2 and 3. 2. Ramesh Thawardas Vasandani, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Business. 3. Haresh Thawardas Vasandani, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioners Both R/o. Ghaiysas Building, (Original defendant Tapi-Nagar, Bhusawal Road, nos.2, 4 and 5) Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. versus Sow. Anuradha Balaji Panda, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Ghaiyasad Building, .. Respondent Tapi-Nagar, Bhusawal Road, (Original Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. plaintiff) .......................... (2) Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate, for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22nd July 2009, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 301/2004, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhusawal, dated 21st October 2004, in Regular Civil Suit No. 227/1997, whereby the suit for eviction was decreed. 2. The respondent landlord had filed a suit for eviction and possession against the present petitioner, on the grounds of bona fide need and securing alternate premises by the tenant, nuisance and change of user. The suit is decreed on all the counts. The petitioners had preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The same is also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. (3) 3. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (landlord), submits that the courts below have grossly erred in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. He submits that, in so far as bona fide need is concerned, the plaintiff was having about 28 rooms in his possession and, as such, there was no need for him to the five rooms vacated which were in possession of the petitioner. In so far as securing alternate accommodation is concerned, he submits that the petitioner no.1 is a Firm and the alleged alternate accommodation was in the name of Kamalabai, wife of deceased Thawardas and, as such, the same cannot be said to be an alternate accommodation of the petitioner. In so far as change of user is concerned, he submits that the premises, even prior to purchase by the plaintiff, were being used for residential and commercial purposes and as such, except vague allegations, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said ground. 4. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, supports the impugned order. He submits that there is no perversity with the approach adopted by the courts below so as to warrant interference. 5. The present petition arises out of concurrent findings of fact. Both the courts, upon appreciation of evidence, have found that the need of the plaintiff is a bona fide need. In so far as bona fide need is concerned, it is the plaintiff's case is that his family is growing, his elder son was to be married and, as such, the premises were required by him. 6. It is a settled law, that what the plaintiff is required to (4) establish is a real need and not a compelling need. It is further settled law, that the landlord is best judge of his need. Both the courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide need for occupation of the premises. In so far as securing alternate accommodation is concerned, it is not even disputed by the petitioner, that the alternate premises are in the name of Kamalabai, wife of deceased Thawardas. The family of deceased Thawardas consisted of himself, his wife and two sons, namely, Ramesh and Haresh. It can thus be clearly seen that all persons were members of the same family. During the pendency of the proceedings, Thawardas has died and, as such, the family consisted of his sons Ramesh and Haresh. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff has produced the photograph of the house constructed in the name of Kamalabai. The same photographs were on record of the proceedings in the trial court. The photographs would reveal that it is a huge bungalow. In that view of the matter, I find that the finding of the trial court and the appellate court, that the petitioners were having alternate accommodation, cannot be said to be perverse. 8. Since I find that on these two counts alone, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction and possession, I do not find it necessary to go into other aspects of the matter. 9. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (5) 10. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8305