The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction must be assessed based on their own needs, and one co-owner can initiate eviction proceedings without consent from others.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Shimpi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3/1 to 3/3 i.e. the contesting Respondents.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the Petitioner, who is the original tenant is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 29^th February 1996 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No.415 of 1989. The challenge in said Civil Appeal No. 415 of 1989 was to the Judgment and Decree dated 30^th March 1989 passed by learned II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1099 of 1980, by which the said Suit was dismissed. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 29^th February 1996, the Appeal is partly allowed by passing partial eviction decree regarding only Block No.14 out of Suit premises being Block Nos.14, 15 and 16 of Kalekar Building, Navi Peth, Solapur.

3. It is the submission of Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel that, although earlier the bonafide requirement mentioned as of all the Plaintiffs, however, during the pendency of the Suit, the plaint has been amended by adding paragraph 2(v) and paragraph Nos. 6(v) by which it has been brought on record that the partition has been effected between the Plaintiffs and as far as the Plaintiff No.3 is concerned, he has been allotted Block Nos. 7, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 22 of said Kalekar Building. He submitted that the entire basis of the case of Plaintiff No.3 is on the partition of the properties, however, said partition has not been proved and in any case, the same is challenged by filing Suit by one co-owner. He submitted that the said partition is malafide. He submitted that the Plaintiff No.3 has failed to prove bonafide requirement and therefore, the impugned decree of partial eviction should not have been passed. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court by giving cogent reasons has dismissed the suit and therefore the learned Appellate Court should not have interfered with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

4. Mr. Shimpi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that as far as allotment of these blocks in favour of Plaintiff No.3 is concerned, there is no dispute raised by Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. He further submitted that all the Plaintiffs are parties to the present Writ Petition as the Respondents, however, none of the Respondents have raised any dispute atleast regarding allotment of these block Nos. 7, 14, 15, 16 and 20 and 21 in favour of the Plaintiff No.3. In any case, he submitted that even assuming that there is no partition, then also admitted position is that the Plaintiff No.3 is co-owner of these properties and therefore, as per settled legal position, even one co-owner can file the Suit for eviction. He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the son of Plaintiff No.3,who is an Advocate is having need of the premises. He therefore, supported the decree passed by the learned Appellate Court.

5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Petitioner i.e. the Defendant is in possession of Block Nos. 14, 15 and 16 i.e. each block consisting of 3 rooms and thus admittedly the Defendant is in possession of 9 rooms. By the impugned Order of the Appellate Court only partial decree is passed by which the Defendant is directed to deliver vacant possession of Block No.14 to the Plaintiff. The said Block No.14 is consisting of 3 rooms and even after eviction of the Defendant of said Block No. 14, the Defendant will be in possession of 6 rooms of Block Nos. 15 and 16. The position on record shows that all these rooms are very specious.

6. With the above background, it is required to note the reasons given by the learned trial Court while rejecting decree of eviction and even the partial eviction decree. The reasons given