V. MOHTA ANOOP, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, by which his petition or suit for eviction was dismissed on all counts, including bona fide need and comparative hardship, as contemplated under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act ). Therefore, the present petition.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel, Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik, appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2, though served. The suit premises consists of one room, admeasuring 10' X 10' situated on the first floor in 1219 (old) 1159 (new), Bhawani Peth, Pune. Respondent No. 1 is residing in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- per month. Respondent no. 1 is staying alone in the suit premises. The petitioner-landlord consists more than 7 members including his one daughter and three sons. They are in possession of only two rooms. In this background, by notice dated 7/8/1987, the tenancy was terminated. On 10/9/1987 Misc. Application. No. 663/1984 was filed by the respondent for fixation of standard rent. On 13th September, 1987, the present suit in question filed in the Court of Small Cause Court, pune, (trial Court ). The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned Judge, after considering the material on record by the order dated 28/11/1989, dismissed the petitioner's suit on all grounds i. e. defaulter, subletting, change of user, nuisance and annoyance and bona fide need. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by the impugned Judgment and order dated 10th July, 1992.

( 3 ) AS contended, both the Courts have rejected the bona fide need of the petitioner-landlord on the ground that there was no element of "must", which is necessary for claiming the possession of the premises by the landlord. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on 2000 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C. J9 : A. I. R 1999 S. C. W. 3944 (Raghunath G. Panhale v. M/s Chaganlal Sundarji and Co.), and (2001)8 S. C. C. 718 (Kempalah v. Lingalah and others ). The apex Court in both these cases, considered the Bombay Rent Act in question. The necessary ingredients of section 13 (l) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act, and specially revolving around the terms "reasonable and bona fide requirement/ need" can be gathered from these following paragraphs;

"the word 'reasonable' connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire the word "requirement" coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need in present or within reasonable proximity in the future. The use of the word "bona fide" is an additional requirement under section 13 (1) (g) and it means that the requirement must also be honest and not be tainted with any oblique motive. ""it will be seen that the trial Court and the Appellate Court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity. "

( 4 ) FURTHER from Kempaiah (supra) paras 7 and 8;

"the terms reasonable and bona fide requirement" are complementary and supplementary to each other in the context. Dealing with a similar provision under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947, this Court in (Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul kasul Moulali Kotkune), 1999 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C. J543 held that when the legislature employed the two terms together the message to be gathered is that requirement must be really genuine from any reasonable standard. Where eviction is sought on the aforesaid ground, a duty i