JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioners against the judgment delivered by the Extra Joint Judge, Poona, dismissing the petitioners appeal against the order passed by the Judge of the Small Causes Court, Poona, rejecting the petitioners claim for possession. It is not necessary for the purposes of this petition to enumerate all the facts in detail. The petitioners had filed a suit against respondent No. 1 claiming possession of the suit premises on various grounds, one of which was that the suit premises occupied by the respondent No. 1 as tenant were required by the petitioners reasonably and bona fide for their use and occupation. It was the case of the petitioners that they have acquired this property for the purpose of erecting some buildings and constructing a play ground for the girls of their school. The claim of the petitioners was denied by the respondent No. 1. The parties led evidence and the learned Judge of the trial Court, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioners was not bona fide. He also held that greater hardship would be caused to the defendant if a decree fur possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Consistent with these findings, the trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit for possession. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal and the Appellate Judge held that the school had already a play ground and, therefore, the need of the petitioners was not bona fide. He did not consider the question of hardship. He dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition against that order. When this matter came before Bhasme, J., he came to the conclusion that both the courts below have committed an error in holding that the petitioners need was not bona fide. He held that the petitioners required the premises bona fide for their occupation and it was necessary to consider the question of relative hardship. As the Joint Judge has not recorded any finding in that behalf, he sent back the matter to the Appellate Judge with the direction to consider the evidence on record and to record a finding about the hardship as required under section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and to certify to this Court the finding in that respect. As the Joint Judge has not recorded any finding in that behalf, he sent back the matter to the Appellate Judge with the direction to consider the evidence on record and to record a finding about the hardship as required under section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and to certify to this Court the finding in that respect. The matter went back before the appellate Judge who heard the parties again and now has recorded the finding that greater hardship would be caused to the appellant if a decree for possession is refused than to the respondent if decree for possession is passed in favour of the petitioners (appellant). After the receipt of this .finding no objections have been filed by the parties. Now matter has come up before me. Mr. Abhyankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Appellate Court considered all the evidence on record. He submitted that the property was acquired by the petitioners for utilising it for the purpose of the school. The school is in need of a play ground for the girls, and the respondent No. 1 occupies two rooms in the premises. Occupation of two rooms by respondent No. 1 will cause hindrance to the girls playing there. The visitors who would be coming to the respondent No. 1 would also disturb the girls in their activities. The petitioners have suggested alternative accommodation to the respondent No. 1 which he has refused on the ground that he will be required to pay higher rent. The learned Counsel submits that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioners. Mr. Agarwal the learned Counsel for the respondents wanted to assail the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. It is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The finding given by the Appellate Court is based on evidence. He has also rightly observed that the occupation of the premises by the respondent No. 1 will definitely hinder the activities of the girl students of the institution run by the petitioners. The petitioners have suggested 2-3 alternative accommodations to the respondent No. 1 but he has refused on the ground that he will have to pay higher rent. There is evidence to show that one of the brothers of the respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. The petitioners have suggested 2-3 alternative accommodations to the respondent No. 1 but he has refused on the ground that he will have to pay higher rent. There is evidence to show that one of the brothers of the respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. 250/- and if he is required to pay a little higher rent, that will not cause great Hardship to the respondent No . 1. In my view, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court is justified and no interference is required in that finding in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, Bhasme, J. has come to the conclusion that the need of the petitioners was bona fide. Both the courts below were not justified in dismissing the plaintiffs claim for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. In the result, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. The Judgments and decrees of both the courts below regarding possession of the suit property are set aside and the petitioners claim for possession is decreed. Under the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ------