ORDER :

R.G. KETKAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sathaye, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1B to 1F and 1H, at length.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1998 passed by the learned in Additional District Judge, Nashik in Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1993. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1993 passed by the V Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Civil Suit No. 98 of 1988. The learned District Judge dismissed the Suit. The relevant and material facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Petition, briefly stated, are as follows.

3. On 25.01.1988, Yashodabai Gopalrao Khodkar (for short 'Yashodabai') had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 98 of 1988 against Chotusheth alias Balkrushna Keshav Sinnarkar (for short 'Chotusheth') for recovery of possession of shop situate on the ground floor of Municipal House No. 1474 in C.T.S. No. 2116-A, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Rent Act'). Chotusheth filed written statement dated 12.09.1989 resisting the Suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the necessary issues on 16.11.1990. The learned trial Judge decreed the Suit only under Section 13(1)(g) of the Act. Aggrieved by that decision, Chotusheth preferred Civil Appeal before the District Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Chotusheth died leaving behind the respondents herein. By the impugned order dated 07.04.1998, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal as indicated earlier. It is against this order, Yashodabai instituted this Petition.

4. During the pendency of this Petition, Yashodabai filed Civil Application No. 1173 of 2008. In paragraph 1 of that application, she asserted that respondents are having shop on ownership basis on the ground floor, which is about 80 ft. away from the suit premises. On account of acquisition of the shop premises, respondents do not require the suit premises for their business any further. That apart, the suit premises was closed for over 2 years. In view thereof, the ground of nonuser became available as an additional ground for eviction. Rajendra Govindrao Hatwalne (for short 'Rajendra') filed affidavit dated 20.11.2008 in that application. In paragraph 1a, he stated that since 1980 or even earlier, he has been residing with Yashodabai. Yashodabai was staying in a rented house, which is a trust property known as "Abhinav Bharat Mandir Trust". He further stated that he is looking after his old grand mother as she has crossed 90 years of her age. Yashodabai has no issue or heir excepting Rajendra.

5. In paragraph 1d, it is stated that one of the heirs of Chotusheth namely, Prabhakar retired from Hindustan Aeronautic Limited. He had been in the occupation of the suit premises. Prabhakar has acquired another shop bearing No. 9 on the first floor on ownership basis since about 6-7 years. The said shop is 60-70 ft. away from the Goldsmith Alankar Market at Nashik. In support of these contentions, he relied upon, (i) latest photographs, (ii) demand register extract for the year 2008, and (iii) light bill dated 10.11.2008 showing name of Prabhakar in respect of shop No. 9. Thus, the need of the respondents is lesser than the need of Yashodabai that is to have a general provision store in the suit premises. He further stated that Yashodabai was staying on the 3rd floor of Abhinav Bharat Mandir Building and she has no other place to stay in her own Wada (mansion) excepting the suit premises as desired by her in her own house. It was, therefore, submitted that in view of the latest developments, respondents did not require the suit premises for themselves and are trying to expan