=1= IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 240 OF 2009 Shri Narayan Gaonkar alias Narayan Naik, Hno. 353, Comba, Margao, Salcete, Goa. ... Petitioner. Verses Smt. Lourdes Gonsalves, through her attorney Smt. Julia Antao, r/o Mazilwaddo, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. .... Respondent. Shri Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram: A. H. Joshi, J. Date : 5th August, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard learned Advocate Mr. Preetam Tendulkar for the petitioner. 2. Learned Advocate has vigorously argued but is unable to challenge the findings on all grounds on which order of eviction is passed. 3. Relying on the reported judgment of Honourable Supreme Court, reported in (2003) 2 SCC =2= page 3, Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtar Sing, learned Advocate for the petitioner urges that when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide personal need, subsequent developments which may nullify the need should be considered. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner gave emphasis on the pleadings contained in paragraph no. 9 of the Writ Petition which is quoted below for ready reference as below: - “The petitioner states that meanwhile when the case between petitioner and respondent was pending before Rent Controller, Margao, the disputes of tenancy between the respondent and some of the other tenants were been settled and therefore petitioner submits that this facts makes clear that the bonafide requirement of respondent is false. In the suit premises, there were total four tenements including petitioner. Petitioner also requested respondent frequently for settlement of dispute as it has been done with other tenants.” 5. Petitioner is not able to demonstrate before this Court nor he had done before Courts below as to what are these set of facts which constitute =3= subsequent developments. 6. It is vivid that petitioner is arguing in a void. Even one event is not shown to have occurred from the date of judgment of Rent Controller which is dated 5.7.2002 till the date of filing of Writ Petition. 7. Entire pleadings and arguments regarding subsequent development are like tell tale and without any cognizable substance, and there is nothing beyond a chat. 8. This petition is therefore without merit and is dismissed. A. H. Joshi, J. *am/-