JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---These three petitioner by three tenants are directed against a common judgment delivered by the District Judge, Thana, dismissing their appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thana, directing them to deliver possession of the suit premises to the landlord. It is not necessary for the purposes of these petitions to enumerate all the facts in details. It is enough to state that the petitioners in all these three petitions are tenants occupying the premises owned by respondent No. 1 in each case. It appears that the landlords had issued notices terminating the tenancy of the petitioners and also calling upon them to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises, but the tenants did not comply. The landlords thereafter field suits against the petitioners-tenants claiming possession on various grounds, one of which was that the suit premises were required for immediate purpose of demolition order by the Thana Municipal Council. The suits were resisted by the tenants and the trial Court accepted the landlords case and decreed the suits against the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter field appeals before the District Judge, Thana and during those proceeding two document were filed. Ex. No. 30 dated 29th March, 1971, which is a notice issued by the Chief Officer to the tenants calling upon the landlords and the tenants, to effect certain repairs field by the tenants. The landlords field Ex. No. 31 dated No. 31 dated 15th April, 1971 which is a letter given by the President of the Municipal Council to the Advocate of the landlords informing that previous notice for demolition of the house under section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act was not withdrawn. The learned appellate Judge, after taking all these facts into consideration, dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants. Against that order, the tenants approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The rule was issued and the matter came up for hearing before Bhasme, J., who observed : "Reading these letters together, it is not possible for me to hold whether the later letter is to be considered as the cancellation of the earlier order. Both the parties have made certain allegation against each other about these two orders. The rule was issued and the matter came up for hearing before Bhasme, J., who observed : "Reading these letters together, it is not possible for me to hold whether the later letter is to be considered as the cancellation of the earlier order. Both the parties have made certain allegation against each other about these two orders. It is agreed between the parties that the matter should go back to the trial Court for consideration of the real position of the suit premises with reference to the entire evidence and in particular with reference to these two abovementioned letters." He, therefore, set aside the judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below and the matter was sent back to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. He permitted the parties to lead further evidence. The matter went back to the trial Court, after remand. In the, meanwhile, out of five tenants, two tenants vacated the portion and the portion which was occupied by them was pulled down. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in the trial Court after the remand. The respondents, however, examined Mr. More, the Chief Officer, who had issued the letter Ex. 30 and also examined the photographer who had taken recent photographs of that building. Mr. More stated that when he issued those directions for repairs, he was not aware of the initial order issued by the Municipal Council under section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act for the demolition of the structures. He stated that it was not his intention to cancel the earlier order. The trial Judge, after taking into consideration this evidence along with the earlier evidence, viz. of the Building Inspector and the Architect, came to the conclusion that the notice to the landlords given in June, 1968 was rightly given and that by the orders for repairs issued on 29th March, 1971 it was not intended to withdraw the original notice of the demolition. He held, that the house has, in fact, become unsafe for human habitation and that is why the Municipality has issued notice for demolition. He also held that the house was required for immediate purpose of demolition ordered by the local authority. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs claim under section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He also held that the house was required for immediate purpose of demolition ordered by the local authority. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs claim under section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The tenant thereafter filed an appeal before the District Judge, who after hearing the parties, affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. He also referred to the evidence of the Building Inspector, Chief Officer and the Architect and held that the building has become dilapidated and was not safe for habitation. He also observed that the tenants have failed to prove that there was anything fishy, dubious or collusive in the manner of Municipal Council serving the notice of demolition. He, therefore, affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this judgment and decree that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that both the courts below have not complied with the directions given by Bhasme, J. in this remand order and, therefore, the orders by both the courts below deserve to be set aside. It is not possible to accept this contention. Bhasme, J. has remanded the case because he thought from Exs. 30 and 31 that the orders for demolition were obtained by the landlords from the Municipal Council by collusion. He got this impression by Exs. 30 and 31. It is true that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council has directed the tenants to make the necessary repairs, but the subsequent letter by the president of the Municipal Council issued in April 1971 clearly shows that the earlier notice was not withdrawn. Mr. More, the Chief Officer was examined in the trial Court and he has, in unequivocal terms, stated that he was not aware of the order of the demolition. Both the courts bellow have referred to his evidence and other evidence regarding the condition of the house and they have come to the finding that the house has become unsafe for habitation. That apart whether the house has become unsafe for habitation. That apart, whether the house has become unsafe for habitation is the matter entirely for the local authority to decide. That apart whether the house has become unsafe for habitation. That apart, whether the house has become unsafe for habitation is the matter entirely for the local authority to decide. What is required under section 13(1)(hhh) is that there should be a notice issued by the local authority requiring the landlord to demolish the house immediately and whether the house needs demolition is a matter for which decision has to be taken by the local authority. In absence of proof of mala fide, that finding has got to be accepted by the Court. Here, there is nothing brought on record to suggest that this order was obtained by the landlords from the local authority and the local authority has not issued the order bona fide. That being the case, both the courts below were right in decreeing the plaintiffs claim on the ground that the landlords required the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition ordered by the local authority. The petitions are devoid of any substance and deserve to be dismissed with costs. In the result, the petitions are dismissed and the rules are discharged with costs in each case. ------