1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.110 of 2010 in W.P.NO.4901/09 (D) Kamalsingh Ramsingh Bais ..vs.. Smt.Shakuntala w/o Namdeorao Randive. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.Nitin Vyawahare, Adv. for the appellant. Smt.B.H.Dangre Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 25th August, 2010. Heard. We have gone through the impugned judgment so also the judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the respondent-landlady had issued advertisement in the newspaper for sale of her property and therefore, that by itself is a good ground to infer that there was no bona fide need. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that her husband – power of attorney entered the witness box and not the landlady, therefore the evidence of the husband could not have been taken into consideration by the courts below. 2 We do not agree with either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Mere issuing of advertisement in the newspaper for sale of the house property does not vanish the bona fide need of the landlady. So far as the power of attorney is concerned, it is not the contention of the appellant that the husband – power of attorney had no knowledge about case of the wife-landlady. Presumably the husband is the best witness for the wife and in the facts of the present case and looking to her age, the learned Single Judge accepted the plea of the landlady. We find no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc