vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION NO.5861 OF 2005 NO.5861 OF 2005 NO.5861 OF 2005 Kuberbhai Becharbhai Bhutiya ... Petitioner V/s. Trambakrao Shripatrao Jadhav & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.R. Deshpande for Petitioner Mr.N.V. Walawalkar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petitioner challenges the order of the appellate Court which has decreed the suit against the Respondents. The appellate Court has held that the suit premises are bonafide and reasonably required by the landlord, i.e., the Respondent herein. The contention of the Petitioner that the landlord had acquired certain other premises which would take care of the need of the landlord has been negatived by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has found that those premises are used for a grinding mill and that the suit premises are required by the landlord for the members of his family. 2. The appellate Court has also observed that the Petitioner had acquired alternate accommodation at : 2 : Jamkhandi in Vijapur. The Petitioner has not in any manner established that those premises were not suitable and therefore the appellate Court has decreed the suit under sections 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act. 3. In view of this, I see no infirmity in the order of the appellate Court. Petition rejected.