The High Court found the lower court misapplied relevant eviction laws, particularly regarding the bona fide need of the landlord's legal representatives.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners, who happened to be the legal representatives of the original landlord Shafi Ahmed Khudabux Kazi, are challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ahmadnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1977, which arose out of the judgment and decree dated 29-1-1977 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 546/73 whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court had decreed the suit of the landlord for possession of the suit house and with some ancillary reliefs.

2. Deceased Shafi Ahmed Kazi had purchased Municipal House No. 2617, CTS No. 981 - B situated in Panchalimb Galli, Ahmednagar. The ground floor of the said premises is in possession of the present respondent / original defendant as a tenant thereof with an agreed rent of Rs.8 per month. Since the plaintiff wanted to shift in the present premises as it was his bona fide need as also the plaintiff having found that the defendant / tenant had defaulted in payment of the rent and was also causing damage to the suit property, a notice dated 30th June, 1973 was issued by the plaintiff / petitioner calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises as also to make payment of the amount. The above said notice was duly replied. However, since there was no compliance on the part of the respondent, the plaintiff / landlord was required to initiate legal proceedings by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 546/73 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. After having framed the necessary issues for determination in the matter and after having recorded the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. who dealt with the matter, by his judgment and decree dated 29-1-1977 decreed the suit on two counts, i.e. the bona fide need of the landlord to occupy the premises and further that the defendant / tenant was in arrears of rent of two months. Since the case of bona fide need was proved, naturally eviction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff / landlord. However, on the third count, i.e. the alleged waste and damage to the suit property by the tenant, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the same was not proved by the plaintiff / landlord.

3. The tenant, who was naturally dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, approached the District Judge, Ahmednagar by filing an appeal which came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal Number 168/1977. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court who., then, dealt with the matter, reached the conclusion that the case as regards the bona fide need of the landlord was not proved and since the arrears were only of two months, there was no question of passing a decree for eviction against the defendant / tenant, i.e. the present respondent. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court by his judgment and decree dated 18-10-1973 allowed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside.

4. The present petitioners since dissatisfied with this judgment, approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 657/1979 challenging the order of the District Judge on various points. It was one of the points which was argued before the High Court in the abovesaid writ petition that there was total misinterpretation of evidence and something more was read by the learned Judge when it was not actually on the record. His Lordship of the High Court (as he then was), who dealt with the matter having found that