JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Baramati, District Pune dated January 3rd, 1992 in Civil Appeal No. 264/8 of 1989. The property in question is House No. 154 situated in ward No. 5 at Baramati. The petitioner was inducted as a monthly tenant in the said premises which consisted of 9 Khans. The predecessor of the respondents Shivram B. Inamke since deceased, subsequently terminated that tenancy and instituted suit against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D., Baramati bearing Suit No. 133 of 1980 on the ground of default, bona fide requirement and nuisance. The trial Court by order dated March 28, 1988 decreed the suit on the ground of default and bona fide requirement. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Baramati in Civil Appeal No. 264/8 of 1989. The Appellate Court overturned the decree with regard to the ground of default. However, affirmed the view taken by the trial Court in so far as the ground of bona fide requirement and comparative hardship was concerned. Against this concurrent decisions of two courts below regarding the issue of bona fide requirement and greater hardship, the present writ petition under Article 227 has been filed.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition according to the petitioners, certain developments have taken place which would eclipse the need which was set up by the respondents/landlords for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. It is contended that said ground was pressed by the landlord essentially for the requirement of handicapped daughter of Nivrutti Inamke and for the wife Shivram namely Krishnabai being an old aged women, for both of them required medical treatment. In this backdrop, affidavit has been filed before this Court on 15th October, 2001 by the petitioner pointing out that the said Krishnabai has already died and that handicapped daughter Rekha has since been married and staying at her matrimonial home. In other words, it is contended that the basis on which the suit was instituted, that requirement was no more subsisting or available to the landlords. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the two courts below, though concurrent, will have to be effaced. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement was pressed not only on the basis of the aforesaid requirement but additionally also for the children who had grown up and they have to take higher education at Baramati. According to the respondents therefore, the requirement was not only for the handicapped daughter Rekha and old aged Krishanabai but also for other family members more particularly for the children who were to take higher education at Baramati and for their occupation. It is therefore contended that the plea taken in the said affidavit is wholly misconceived and of no avail. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contends that two courts below have concurrently accepted the plea taken by the respondents for the requirement of the children and their family and that finding of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

3. To counter this position the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that as a matter of fact the landlords had instituted another suit in 1973 in which this very ground of requirement for the children was pressed into service and was not accepted. It is therefore, contended that though the other requirement was pressed in the present suit but no decree could be passed as the decision in the previous suit would bind the respondents by principles of res judicata.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, there can be no doubt that the affidavit filed by the petitioner before this Court dated 15th October, 2001 has gone uncontroverted. In that view of the matter, it can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document