A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, dated 4th September in Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1984.

2.This is one of those unfortunate matter, to which the observations made by the Apex Court in a recent decision reported in 2001(2) S.C.C. 604 in (Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava)1, would aptly apply, for the litigation has remained unresolved for last around twentyfive years inspite of the ground of bona fide requirement pressed by the landlord. It is disheartening that matters between landlord and tenant for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement remain pending for so long. In para 15 of that decision, the Apex Court has observed that :

"The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, a malady afflicting the system."

3.Briefly stated, the precedessor of the petitioners, instituted a suit before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 551 of 1977 for possession of the suit premises C.T.S. No. 234/C, situated at "D" Ward in Kolhapur City, on the ground of bona fide requirement, default and tenant having acquired an alternative suitable accommodation, in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). Before institution of the suit, the petitioners predecessor (original landlord) issued legal notice dated 3rd January, 1977 to the original tenant (predecessor of the respondents herein). The suit was initially filed on the grounds of bona fide requirement and default, but during the pendency of the suit, since the original tenant purchased C.T.S. No. 1511 in "B" Ward, Mangalwar Peth, Kolhapur, and is stated to have obtained vacant possession thereof, which premises, according to the landlord was sufficient to meet the requirements of the tenant, the landlord, therefore, amended the plaint by urging an additional ground of tenant having acquired alternative suitable accommodation. The tenant, on the other hand, resisted the suit and denied the material allegations in the plaint. According to the tenant, the suit premises were not required bona fide and for personal requirement of the landlord. In so far as the ground of default was concerned, immediately on receipt of the suit notice demanding arrears and determination of the tenancy, the tenant had instituted standard rent application on 27th January, 1977, being Misc. Application No. 36 of 1977, which was within one month from the date of receipt of the suit notice. Moreover, the tenant deposited interim rent as determined by the Court from time to time. Accordingly, the tenant contended that there was no default within the meaning of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. In so far as the ground of tenant having acquired an alternative and suitable accommodation, the tenant contended that the premises purchased by him were situated away from the suit premises and that in any case the same were not suitable, inasmuch as he was not in possession thereof nor the said alternative premises could be used for business. According to the tenant, it would cause immense hardship and inconvenience to him, since he was conducting business in the suit premises for last several years and had earned goodwill. It was further contended on behalf of the tenant that the newly purchased premises could not be used for business purpose and the same were not suitable. Moreover, it would be inappropriate and impracticable for the tenant, if he was required to shift his residence to the newly acquired premises and continue to do business in the suit premises on the ground floor. This is broadly the stand a taken by the respondents (tenants). I shall make reference to t