1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgments and decrees dated 18th August 1989 and 11th July 1994 made by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai (Trial Court) and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara (Appeal Court) dismissing the petitioners (landlords') Civil Suit No. 18 of 1979 seeking the eviction of the respondents (tenants) from the suit premises by resort to the provisions in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Said Act).

3. Mr. Menezes, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, made it clear that the petitioners– landlord now press for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises only on the following two grounds, even though, several other grounds had also been raised before the Trial Court and the Appeal Court. The two grounds now being pressed are as follows:

(a) The acquisition of alternate suitable premises by respondent – tenant (section 13 (1) (l) of the said Act);

(b) Reasonable and bona fide requirement of the petitioners– landlords (sec.13 (1) (g) of the said Act).

4. Mr. Menezes submits that there is overwhelming material on record to establish that