The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's entitlement to possession based on bonafide requirement for personal use and the significance of specific demand for rent and permitted increases, as well as the duty of the appellate court to consider and decide on additional evidence and the significance of subsequent developments during the pendency of the matter.

1. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 317/2011 and 329/2011 delivered by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Ahmednagar. The District Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court delivered in Regular Civil Suit No. 305/2002 and the suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. The suit was filed for eviction by present respondent No. 1 against the applicants, tenants on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use and also on other grounds. The appellate Court has held that on the ground of bonafide requirement the landlord is entitled to the decree of possession. Both the sides are heard.

2. The suit property is described as C.T.S. No. 3576/1 which is described with local body as House No. 3649. It is a two storied building constructed on the plot of 49 x 16 fts. On the eastern side of the suit property, there is Mahatma Gandhi Road, which is the main road of the city and the suit property has access from eastern side, from the main road. On the north side and south side of the suit property, there are shops and the property is situated in market place.

3. It is the case of plaintiff that one deceased Motilal Jhawar was inducted as tenant in the suit property and after his death, the defendants, the sons of Motilal, became tenants in the suit property. It is the case of plaintiff that he is entitled to get monthly rent of Rs. 45/- and permitted increases, but defendants are not ready to give monthly rent and permitted increases. It is the case of plaintiff that from November 1990, the rent and permitted increases were not paid and so he issued statutory notice to defendants on 31.1.2002. It is contended that in response to the notice, the defendants sent only rent amount in respect of the suit property, but they did not pay permitted increases and so, the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of possession on the ground of default. It is contended that the defendants are liable not only to pay the rent, but they are liable to pay the house tax and education cess also.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that he is in need of suit property for his personal use and he wants to do the business of clothes, ready-made garments on the ground floor and he wants to live in the portion of first floor. According to the plaintiff, he wants to use the suit property for himself and for his family members like sons. According to the plaintiff, he wants to make suitable changes in the building for the purpose of doing business and for residence purpose. It is contended that the property is situated on the main road of the city, which is a market place and plaintiff has no property of his own for residence and for doing business in Ahmednagar.

5. It is the case of plaintiff that his elder son Zumbarlal is living in Jain Galli of Ahmednagar, but that property is also not owned by the plaintiff or his son. The residential place of Zumbarlal is situated in narrow lane and it is not convenient. It is contended that Zumbarlal is doing business in a shop taken on rent basis in Dane Dabara area of Ahmednagar and this shop is also situated on narrow lane and it is not convenient for doing any business.

6. It is the case of plaintiff that his second son Vijay has no place for business in Ahemadnagar and plaintiff wants to make some place available to Vijay.

7. It is the case of plaintiff that greater hardship will be caused to him, to the members of his family, if the possession of the suit property is not given to him. He has contended that no hardship will be caused to the defendants if they are evicted as they have alternate accommodation. It is contended that the defendants own and possess many properties in Pune, which are situated on main road and which are suitable for business. It is contended that the defendants own and possess many properties on main road in Ahmednagar also and they have sold many such properties at big prices. It is contended that a