1. On 9th March, 2016, this Court had passed an order as under;

"Heard Shri Zinjarde, the learned counsel appearing for the applicanttenant. He submits that the need putforth was of the grandson of the nonapplicant/ landlord, but neither the grandson nor his father has entered the witnessbox to depose that they intend to start the business of jewellery The lower Appellate Court has acted upon the socalled admission in para 28 of its judgment about existence of alternate accommodation available to the applicanttenant The learned counsel further submits that there is no such admission given by the applicanttenant.

Issue notice for final disposal of the matter, to the nonapplicant, returnable on 452016.

In the meantime, there shall be stay to the execution of the decree".

The respondent has appeared in response to the notice of this Court.

Admit.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the bonafide requirement has been established by the landlord. Shri Zinjarde, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the landlord is aged about 85 years and the need put forth is of the