JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2) Petitioners/landlords have filed the present Petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 16 March 2022 passed by the District Judge-22, Pune, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.371 of 2015 and confirming the judgment and order dated 11 June 2015 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.419 of 2007. The Trial Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s Suit seeking eviction of the Respondent-Defendant on the grounds of nuisance /annoyance, bonafide requirement and arrears of rent. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts on the issues of nuisance and annoyance, default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3) The premises on (i) ground floor comprising of three rooms, passage of hall admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. (ii) first floor comprising of eight rooms, one hall, two bathrooms, two water closets admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. and (iii) second floor comprising of 8 big rooms, one large hall, 2 bathrooms and two toilets admeasuring 3,000/- sq.ft. in building located at House No. 1922 at Budhwar Peth, Pune are the ‘suit premises’. The building in which suit premises are located was originally owned by late Fidahusain Kachwala, father of Plaintiff No.1-. Father of Plaintiff No.1 inducted Defendant’s father as monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. Defendant’s father commenced the business of ‘Shriraj Lodge’ in the suit premises. After death of his father, Plaintiff claimed the status of landlord in respect of the suit premises. After death of his father, Defendant is the tenant in respect of the suit premises, who is operating the business of ‘Shriraj Lodge’. Plaintiffs reside on the fourth floor of the building, in which suit premises are located.

4) Plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.419 of 2007 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune, seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendant on the ground that acts of the Defendant caused nuisance and annoyance. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant was using the passages in the building for allowing his customers to sleep and that Defendant’s customers used to consume liquor and indulged in frequent quarrels. The Defendant also alleged that the suit premises were being misused by the Defendant for immoral purposes by renting the rooms for two hours. The Plaintiff also alleged default in payment of rent by the Defendant. After issuing notice dated 30 June 2007, Plaintiff instituted the Suit seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises and also demanded arrears of rent of Rs.76,800/-. The Defendant appeared in the Suit and filed written statement contesting the claim of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff amended the Suit by incorporating additional pleadings relating to nuisance/annoyance. The Plaintiff also added the ground of bonafide requirement of his son for commencing hotel, lodging and boarding business. The Defendant filed additional written statement. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues inter-alia relating to default in payment of rent, nuisance/annoyance, bonafide requirement, comparative hardship, etc. The mother of Plaintiff No.1 was added as Plaintiff No.2 in the Suit. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Plaintiff No.1-Shabbir examined himself as PW1. Defendant- Purushottam Challwayya Shetti examined himself as DW1 in addition to examining Shriram Govind Vishnuprad as DW2, Ramkrishna Govind Jadhav as DW3 and Dagdu Sulbha Dhokale as DW4.

5) After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the Suit by judgment and order dated 11 June 2015 answering the issues of default in payment of rent, nuisance and annoyance and bonafid