ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3779 OF 1998 PETITION NO.3779 OF 1998 PETITION NO.3779 OF 1998 1. Ashok Mithalal Maru, Age 41 yrs., Occu. Nil 2. Vasant Mithalal Maru, (since deceased through his L.Rs.) 2A) Priti Vasant Maru, Age 18 years. 2B) Bharati Vasant Maru, Age 11 yrs. 2C) Harsha Vasant Maru, Age 8 yrs. 3. Dilip Mithalal Maru, Age 31 yrs. 4. Narendra Mithalal Maru, Age 34 yrs. 5. Dhirendra Mithalal Maru, Age 28 yrs. Occu. Nil All R/o. 282, Maru Mansion, Red Cross Street, Nasik. ...Petitioners (Orig.Plaintiffs) Vs. 1. Smt.Durgabai Kisanrao Waghmare, Age 69 yrs. Occu. Business. 2. Rajendra Kisanrao Waghmare, Age 45 yrs., Occu.Business, 3. Manoj Kisanrao Waghmare, Age 40 yrs. Occu. Business, 4. Ramdas Chimaji Waghmare, Age 64 yrs., Occu. Business. All R/o. 282, Maru Mansion, Red Cross Street, Nasik. ...Respondents. (Orig.Defendants) ( 2 ) None for the Petitioners. Mr.Sanjay Shinde i/by Mr.M.R.Sathaye for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 12th November, 2008. : 12th November, 2008. : 12th November, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- . None present for the Petitioners. Both the Courts after considering the case of the Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ landlord, rejected the suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of rent, sub-tenancy, alteration and bonafide need. After considering the material available on record, I see there is no case made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the said concurrent finding of the facts. 2. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for all the Respondents makes a statement that they have purchased this property and now they are the owners of the said property with the consent of Petitioner Nos.3,4 and 5. In view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order, even on merits. 3. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( 3 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)