JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The above six Special Civil Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution, are filed by the six tenants of the landlord-respondent, challenging the decrees, which the respondent-plaintiff-landlord had obtained against them under section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sholapur, on August 25, 1975. The decrees were confirmed in six appeals filed by the tenants, by the Assistant Judge, Sholapur, by a common judgment dated April 30, 1976. The concurrent finding and the decrees under section 13(1)(hhh) of the Act, are challenged in the above Special Civil Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution. The finding of the two courts that the suit premises are required by the landlord immediately for the purpose of demolition, ordered by the Sholapur Municipal Corporation, is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the evidence and supported by the cogent and valid reasons. Such a finding cannot be challenged by the petitioner in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. See (Babhutmal v. Laxmibai)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1297. Mr. Rane, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, vigorously urged that the notices relied upon by the two courts, at Ex. 103 and Ex. 104 issued by the Sholapur Municipal Corporation, related only to the demolition of a portion of the suit premises and did not justify the mass eviction of all the petititoners from the suit premises. Secondly, he submitted that after the receipt of the notices at Ex. 103 dated October 13, 1969, and Ex. 104 dated January 27, 1970, one of the tenants, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3587 of 1976, had carried out repairs to the premises, which satisfied the order of the demolition issued under notices at Exhs. 103 and 104; and therefore, the case was covered by the principles laid down by Bhasme, J., in (Piadad Fernandes v. K.M. Ramesh)2, 72 Bom.L.R. 569. None of these contentions can be accepted having regard to the findings and reasons recorded elaborately and properly by the courts below and to the evidence of the Municipal Engineer and the photographs of the suit building which are produced by the photographs Mhalge, who had taken out photographs in October 1969. None of these contentions can be accepted having regard to the findings and reasons recorded elaborately and properly by the courts below and to the evidence of the Municipal Engineer and the photographs of the suit building which are produced by the photographs Mhalge, who had taken out photographs in October 1969. It is, therefore, not open to this Court to interfere with the findings of the two courts below that the evidence led by the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. It is also not open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Sholapur Municipal Corporation, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the ratio in Piadad Fernandes v. K.M. Ramesh, is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Mr. Bhimrao Naik, the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord, has rightly submitted that having regard to the terms of the notices, the two courts have rightly ordered the eviction of all the tenants, as there was danger to the entire building, as stated in the notice; and the landlord wanted to comply with those notices. He relied on the principles discussed in (Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. v. Velji Lakhamsi Co.)3, 74 Bom.L.R. 628, which has been rightly relied upon by the two courts below, and they have come to the conclusion that the tenants must be evicted for the purpose of demolition to be carried out in the suit building, as directed by the Sholapur Municipal Corporation. The arguments of Mr. Rane that the notices were in respect of only part of the premises and that part alone could have been taken from the tenants is not correct, as the two notices point out the danger to the whole building and the reasons given for the danger are cracks in the walls and other parts of the building, which are described therein. Moreover, the word "premises" is defined in section 5(8) of the Rent Act, to mean not only the whole building but also a part of the building; and even if a part of the building is in danger, and the evidence establishes that the eviction of all the tenants was necessary, as in the present case held by the two courts below, all the tenants are liable to be evicted. The plaintiff has led the evidence of the Municipal Engineer to prove that whatever repairs had been done by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3587 of 1976, did not remove the danger to the building in order to satisfy the notices of demolition issued by the Municipal Corporation. It must also be noted that there is a concurrent finding of the two courts below that the landlord bona fide required the suit premises for the personal occupation under section 13(1)(g) of the Act, and greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the decree for eviction is not ordered. The findings are also findings of facts supported by the convincing reasons which cannot be challenged by the tenants in this Court having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Babhutmal v. Laxmibai; and further I find no error in any of the reasons given by the two courts below under section 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(2) of the Act. In the result, all the Special Civil Applications fail. Rule is discharged with costs in each of them. The record and proceedings to be sent down immediately. -----