1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5187 OF 2004 Shrikrishna Hari Mehendale & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Anil Ganesh Chaphekar. ..Respondent. Mr.A.P.Vanarase for petitioners. Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JULY 21, 2008. DATE : JULY 21, 2008. DATE : JULY 21, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Although two Courts below have answered the issue of bonafide requirement and hardship against the Petitioners/- tenant, however, having gone through the material on record, I am of the opinion that the concurrent findings reached by the two Courts below will have to be reversed. Counsel for the Respondent in all fairness submits that the Court may not record detailed reasons in that behalf as the Respondent concedes through Counsel that the need of the Petitioners in respect of the suit property i.e. three rooms admeasuring 300 sq.ft on the first floor of the building situated at C.T.S. No.1059, situated at Shukrawar Peth, Pune is genuine and reasonable and 2 that the Petitioner-landlord would suffer greater hardship in the event of refusal to pass a decree, in comparison to the hardship, to be suffered by the Respondent/tenant. In view of the request made by the Counsel for the Respondent, I am not adverting to the material on record to answer the issue of bonafide requirement and greater hardship, except to observe that the Petitioner landlord has succeeded to establish those issues. 2. In view of the above, the Petitioners/landlords are entitled for a decree on the ground of bonafide requirement against the Respondent/tenant. In view of this opinion, the Counsel for the Petitioners is not inviting any decision on the issue of non-user of the suit premises asserted by the Petitioners against the Respondent. Hence that aspect is left open. 3. Significantly, inspite of the above view made known to the parties, the parties have decided to amicably settle the issue regarding date of vacating the suit premises. The Petitioners on their own have volunteered to pay sum of Rs. 7(seven) Lakhs to the Respondent to secure alternate accommodation upon vacating and handing over peaceful and vacant 3 possession of the suit premises with a view to mitigate hardship to be caused to the Respondent/tenant. The Petitioners have offered postdated cheque bearing No.325954 dated 4th August, 2008 drawn on Central Bank of India, Pune in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent undertakes through the Counsel to vacate the suit premises within two weeks from the date of realisation of the said cheque, to be certified by the bankers of the Respondent in that behalf. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of on the above terms by taking the Consent Terms duly signed by the parties and their advocate on record, to be marked as ‘X’ for identification. Undertaking given by the Respondent through Counsel as also recorded in the Consent Terms is also accepted. Respondent as well as Petitioner No.4 are personally present in the court, in whose presence this Order is dictated in open court. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)