1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2010 Smt. Sushila H. Shah .. Petitioner V/s M/s Bhagwati Dyechem Industries & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. B.B. Parekh for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 16 June 2009 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. 3. The petitioner as a landlord filed a suit, bearing RAE Suit No. 724/1230 of 2001, against the respondent tenant for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. The trial court as well as the appellate court held that the petitioner had failed to prove the reasonable and bonafide requirement. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below, in my view, is a possible finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in 2 exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requires the suit premises for the purpose of his married daughter and the courts below erred in law in not treating the married daughter as a part of the family and, therefore, the writ petition raises a question of law and should be entertained. 5. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate court shows that the appellate court has not only dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner’s daughter is not a family member but it has also come to the conclusion that even the married daughter does not require the suit premises. The appellate court has held that the petitioner’s daughter was married in a wealthy family and had acquired several offices in Mumbai and hence the residential premises at Kalyan were not required by her and she could very well afford her own premises in her matrimonial house. I see no reason to interfere with this finding of fact. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)