WP.2203-95, 5061-94 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2203 OF 1995 1. Sharad Murlidhar Sukla, Age 49 years, ) Occu.- Business, Residing at House No.1015 Shukla Galli, Nashik. ) 2. Sunil Sudhakar Chavan, Age 39 years, ) Occu.- Business, ) 3. Rajendra Sudhakar Chavan, Age 45 years, ) Occu.- Business, ) Both residing at 1064 Tiwari Lane, Nashik ...Petitioner Vs. Shankar Ramkrushna Lakade, Age 54 years ) Occu.- Business, Residing at House ) No. 1041/B, Shukla Galli, Nashik. ) ...Respondent WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 5061 OF 1994 Sharad Murlidhar Sukla, Age 49 years, ) Occu.- Business, Residing at House No.1015 Shukla Galli, Nashik. ...Petitioner Vs. Baban Vithoba Vispute, Age 63 years ) Occu.- Service, Resident of House ) No. 1041-B, Shukla Galli, Nashik ...Respondent WP.2203-95, 5061-94 - 2 - *** Mr. M. M. Sathye for the Petitioner No.2. None for the Respondents. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MARCH 8, 2011 PC : 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment, since the original petitioner in both the petitions are common and the respondents are tenants. 2. Brief facts are that respondents in both the petitions are tenants of the petitioner and a suit was filed for eviction and possession by the petitioners/landlord. The respondents contested the suit and contended that the petitioners did not require the premises for the purpose for which the claim was made. 3. The trial Court heard both the suits together and held that the petitioners would suffer greater hardship. The learned trial Court by its common judgment and order dated 21st July, 1989 decreed the suits. Against this judgment and decree, the respondents preferred two separate appeals before the Second Additional Judge, at Nashik. The lower WP.2203-95, 5061-94 - 3 - Appellate Courts, however, allowed both the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court by observing that the petitioners have failed to prove his bona fide requirement and further observed that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents. 4. I have perused the judgment and order of both the Courts below. The Lower Appellate Court has taken into consideration the evidence on record and has given cogent evidence while allowing the appeal. The Court has also taken into consideration the question of hardship and after going through the evidence on record, has observed that greater hardship would be caused to the tenants and not to the landlord. Further, it is observed that bona fide requirement has not been established by the petitioners. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned judgment and order while exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Apex Court in the case of – Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr., Appellants vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, Respondent [2010(6) Mh.L.J. 661]1 has observed that the Courts should be slow while interfering with the orders passed by the subordinate Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 1 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 661 WP.2203-95, 5061-94 - 4 - The Apex Court also observed that this Court should not substitute its own findings to the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court by re-appreciating the evidence on record and taking a different view. In this view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.] 6. After this order was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in the matter at 5.00 p.m. and requested that he may be heard and further submitted that since he was on his legs before another Court, he could not remain present when the matter was called out. The order, therefore, which is dictated above is recalled since it was not signed. In the interest of justice, place the writ petition for final hearing on 10th March, 2010 . [ V. M. KANADE J.]