- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4188 of 1989 passed on January 13, 1997. The appellants are the landlords of the House No. and C.T.S. No. 1422, Kasba Peth (old House No. 70 Raviwar Peth), Pune, (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') which was leased out to the first respondent, (Bhaskar Balwant Aher) who died during the pendency of the proceedings. His legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 1A to 1G. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as 'the appellants' and 'the respondents'.
(2.) The appellants let out the suit premises which comprised of three rooms - two rooms on the front side for purposes of running a motorcycle workshop and one room on the rear side for residential purposes - on monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. On August 30, 1985, the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 1423 of 1985 seeking eviction of respondent No. 1 from the suit premises on four grounds : (i) bona fide personal requirement; (ii) change of user; (iii) imprudent use causing damage to and waste of the suit premises; and (iv) causing nuisance and annoyance. The suit was resisted denying all the four grounds. On November 30, 1987, the Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, found all the four grounds in favour of the appellants and decreed the suit for eviction of the first respondent. His appeal, before the VIIth Additional District Judge, Pune, against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, resulted in dismissal on August 1, 1989. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court on three grounds; however, the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the appellants was found against them. The respondents then filed Writ Petition No. 4188 of 1989 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree of the VIIth Additional District Judge, Pune. The High Court reversed the finding of the learned District Judge, Pune. The High Court reversed the finding of the learned District Judge on all the three grounds and thus allowed the writ petition on January 13, 1997, which is now under challenge in this appeal.
(3.) Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court ought not to have reappreciated the evidence and set aside the findings of facts found by the Courts below concurrently and that on this ground alone the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. He argued the merits of grounds on which the findings of the Courts below were upset by the High Court.;