The central legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's right to possess business premises based on a bonafide and reasonable requirement, as well as the interpretation of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act in relation to business premises.

1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Nasik dated 12.07.1991 in Civil Appeal No.223 of 1989 thereby allowing the tenant's Appeal and setting aside the decree of possession of the suit premises passed in favour of Petitioner / Plaintiff and instead dismissed the suit filed by the Petitioners / Plaintiffs.

2. The Petitioners had filed suit for possession of the premises situated in Municipal House No. 1173, CTS No. 2482 consisting of one room ad measuring 15' X 10' on the first floor of said house against the Respondent / tenant amongst others on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for personal use and occupation. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the Plaintiffs / landlords accepting the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of Plaintiff No.1 for his own use and business. That decision was carried in Appeal by the tenant which in turn has reversed the said opinion of the Trial Court and instead, dismissed the suit for possession preferred by the Petitioners / Plaintiffs.

3. Before proceeding to examine the matter further, it would be apposite to advert to the basis on which the Trial Court proceeded to consider the case to answer the issue in favour of the Petitioners / Plaintiffs. I shall not be burdening this judgment with other issues involved in the suit but confine the discussion to the ground for possession of the suit premises for personal use and occupation of Plaintiff No. 1. The relevant discussion in this behalf can be discerned from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has considered the issue of comparative hardship in Paragraphs 8 and 9. In so far as the case made out by the Plaintiffs, it is common ground that the Plaintiffs have generally stated that suit property were required for bonafide and reasonable requirement for personal use and occupation of the Plaintiff No.1. In the plaint, it is clearly asserted that Plaintiff No.1 has no other accommodation for starting his business. The matter went for trial when the Plaintiffs' witness has spoken about the requirement of suit premises for personal use and occupation of Plaintiff No. 1 to start his business therein. The Trial Court has adverted to this aspect and then proceeded to examine the matter. It found that admittedly, no other property was standing in the name of Plaintiff No. 1 except the suit property which was purchased jointly by both the Plaintiffs. The suit premises in occupation of the Respondent is situated in front portion of the first floor. Behind the said room, there is another room which is also in possession of tenant namely Baburao Bhavsar. The Trial Court has also noticed that there is a shoe and chappal shop stall in the name of Bharat Leather on the ground floor which belongs to Plaintiff No. 2. The Trial Court has also found that it is not in dispute that the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers and they are having family business of cobbler and to sell shoes and chappals. The Plaintiff No. 1 has been examined at Ex 50. That evidence has been analysed by the Trial Court wherein he has deposed that the house was purchased by him for opening shop in the suit premises and he has no other alternate accommodation for starting his business. He has deposed that he was doing business of selling chappals and shoes on the road for which he was prosecuted by the police by filing criminal cases. The fact that Plaintiff No. 1 was prosecuted by the police is established from the evidence of Plaintiff's witness who is an independent person and was responsible to lodge prosecution against the Plaintiff No. 1. The Trial Court has then noticed that Defendant's case is that the Plaintiff's father has a shop of shoes and chappals on the ground floor and other places and they have also properties at other places. The Plaintiffs'