Heard respective Counsel. The present petitioner-tenant has questioned the order passed by the Courts below in granting decree for eviction and possession in favour of the landlady/her legal heirs under the clause 'bonafide need' as contemplated under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947). Hereinafter shall be referred to as "Rent Act".

2. From the record it appears that Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1988 came to be filed by one Smt. Jadaobai w/o Mishrimal Lalwani on 06/06/1988 against the present respondents praying therein possession of the property consisting of a shop admeasuring 15 x 30 ft. constructed on C.T.S. No. 435/B and 436/B having Municipal House No. 1278 within jurisdiction of Nandurbar Municipal Council, which is locally identified the said property as 'Hat Darwaja Bazar'.

3. The property in question was rented out to respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- per month.

4. In the proceedings initiated before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, the landlady canvassed bonafide requirement for her own and her husband, as according to landlady, she is staying alongwith her husband, her mother. She further avered that she intent to establish business in the said premises and as such, sought decree for the possession of the property in question. The claim of the landlady was objected by the petitioner by filing written statement. The petitioner submitted that bonafide need as canvassed by the landlady is not genuine. He submitted that the husband of the landlady is engaged in the business of Savkari/money lending and in relation to other premises in the said building, the landlady has sought possession on the similar ground.

5. The learned Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar granted decree in favour of the landlady which was subject matter of the Civil Appeal No.71 of 1995 before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nandurbar. The learned Additional District Judge, Nandurbar passed its judgment on 26/02/2001 upholding judgment of the trial Court ordering grant of possession of the property in question to the landlady, under Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act.

6. Being aggrieved thereby present petition.

The petitioner-tenant submits that the suit of the landlady was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 11/08/1995 wherein the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar ordered the recovery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The said decree of the possession is based upon bonafide need as pleaded in the plaint of that husband of landlady. In support of the said claim of bonafide need, the husband of the landlady has entered into witness box so as to depose and justify the need.

While dealing with the same, the learned trial Court has framed Issue No.2 thus :

“2. Does plaintiff prove that the suit premises are reasonably and bonafide required for occupation by herself?. and given finding on the said issue in the affirmative.

While dealing with the above referred issue, the learned trial Court has observed that the premises in question wherein the present petitioner is doing business for more than 40 years, the husband of the landlady Mishrimal has deposed that he has no source of income and want the suit premises for running wholesale business of Gur (jaggery). He further stated that he cannot run business from the residential premises because it is not the business area. As such, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit.

The Appellate Court has also confirmed the said findings i.e. bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlady for establishing business by her husband, and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below of eviction.

7. The ground that is canvassed by the petitioner in the present petition is subsequent events qua bonafide need of landlady or her hus