Judgment

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judica­ture at Bombay in W.P. No. 362 of 1984 dated March 27, 1997. The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased landlady, Smt. Ramkubai, and the respondents are original defendant No. 1, Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and the legal representatives of the second de­fendant Lalchand Dhokalchand Chandak (hereinafter they are referred to as ‘landlady’ and ‘tenants’).

2. The landlady filed civil suit, bearing Civil Suit No. 12 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D. Igatpuri, against the respondent No. 1 herein and the said Lalchand Dhokalchand Chandak who died during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent Nos. ‘2A’ to ‘2F’ are his legal representatives, for recovery of possession of house bearing Municipal No. 138 and one of the rooms in house No. 150 within the Municipal limits of Igatpuri town (for short ‘the suit premises’) under Sections 12 and 13(1)(e) and (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Recovery of possession was sought on the following three grounds :

(1) the tenant committed default in payment of rent for the period, June 1973 to November 10, 1974;

(2) the first defendant sublet the premises to the second defendant;

(3) bona fide requirement of the landlady for personal occupa­tion of her family.

The first defendant did not oppose the suit.

3. The second defendant contested the suit and denied all the grounds. It was pleaded that the first defendant and the second defendant were brothers and they constitute a joint family and that the premises was obtained by the first defendant for the family. The learned trial Court found that all the grounds were established by the landlady and granted a decree for eviction of tenants. The tenants went in appeal before the Court of Assistant Judge of Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1981. The Appellate Court found that there was no wilful default in payment of rent; there was no subletting of the premises and that there was no case of personal requirement of the landlady. However, it has held that there would not be any real hardship to the tenants if decree of eviction is passed on the ground that the landlady’s re­quirement is bona fide and reasonable. In this view, the Appellate Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the appeal on September 28, 1983. The correctness of that judgment of the Appellate Court was assailed by the appellants in the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 362 of 1984. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Appellate Court on all the grounds and dismissed the writ petition on March 27, 1997. It is from that judgment and order of the High Court that this appeal arises.

4. The only point canvassed before us relates to bona fide personal requirement of the landlady.

5. Mr. V.N. Ganpule, learned senior counsel for the appellants, con­tended that the landlady sought eviction of the tenants for personal requirement to establish a Kirana shop for her son - Bhikchand Jasraj Chordiya (for short ‘Bhikchand’) - which was her family business and that merely on the ground that her other son is carrying on Kirana business in one shop and she is a partner in the firm which is carry­ing on the business in the second shop, the plea for bona fide person­al requirement was negatived by both the Appellate Court as well as the High Court.

6. Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respond­ents, submitted that the reasons given by the Appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court are very cogent and the order under appeal is a just order which does not warrant any interference.

7. Since, the only ground urged for consideration is under Section 13(1)(g), it may be useful to extract that provision here:

“13(1)(g). When landlord may recover possession-

(1) Notwithstanding anything cont