JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---The petitioner-landlord who had purchased the suit premises on 31st October, 1974 for Rs. 41,000/-, initiated the present proceedings by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 431 of 1976 on the file or the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar against the present respondent-tenant for eviction and possession on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31st May, 1976 and further that the petitioner-landlord wanted the premises in question for his bona fide accommodation as he intended to start a hotel business therein. 2.In nutshell, the facts are that the Municipal House No. 7293, City Survey No. 3575 situated at Ward No. 6 in Main Bazar area i.e. on Mahatma Gandhi Road, is the suit area which was purchased by the landlord in which since last about 21 years, the respondent-tenant has been doing his business of selling pens and goggles in a demarcated area of 7½ x 18 ft. on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 21.50 p. It is not in dispute that the total area of the premises in question is approximately 720 sq. ft. out of which 135 sq. ft. approximately is an area with the tenant and rest of the area is with the petitioner-landlord. It is also not in dispute that a shop on the ground floor out of the above-said area consisted of 48 x 15 ft. and in that area the tenant had 7½ x 18 ft. having frontage of 7 x 5 ft. and the rest of the 7.5 ft. frontage is with the landlord. The landlord filed the above-mentioned suit, after having issued a notice dated 1-6-1975 which was duly replied by the respondent-tenant. The learned II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar who dealt with the matter after having recorded the evidence and framing of the necessary issues, decreed the sit partly only as regards the arrears of rent and on rest of the counts, the suit is dismissed, rejecting the prayer of the landlord for possession. This judgment of the learned Judge of the trial Court is dated 28-1-1981. 3.In short, the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 186/- for damages in lieu of rent was allowed but the claim as regards possession was rejected. This judgment of the learned Judge of the trial Court is dated 28-1-1981. 3.In short, the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 186/- for damages in lieu of rent was allowed but the claim as regards possession was rejected. As regards the point of bona fide need of the landlord, it is specific finding given by the learned Judge of the trial Court that the landlord failed to prove his case for bona fide requirement and reasonable need. 4.Aggrieved landlord had approached the Appellate Court by filing a Regular Civil Appeal No. 170/1981 and the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar who dealt with the matter by his judgment and order dated 6-7-1983 upheld the findings given by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. It is this judgment, which is under challenge by way of the present petition. 5.Undisputedly, the only point that needs consideration in the present petition is as to whether there was really a bona fide need of the landlord and as to whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the same or not. 6.Shri-Gatne, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord, vehemently argued that both the courts below were not right when it is observed by them that the landlord has failed to prove his bona fide need to occupy the premises in question and further that the offer which was made by the landlord to the tenant for occupying the rear portion of the same size of the same shop with the same rent could not be said to be a bona fide offer. As regards this question of offer, I am dealing with it subsequently. The first question is to find out as to whether did the landlord prove his case for bona fide requirement. The facts on the record do indicate and it is not disputed that the father of the present petitioner was running a hotel in the name and style as "Rajendra Hotel" in some different locality and that was an old hotel. It is also not disputed on record that the present petitioner is the only son of his father. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the suit premises with an intention to have a modern hotel with upto date facilities therein and which would be, according to the petitioner, of the standard of three, four or five stars. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the suit premises with an intention to have a modern hotel with upto date facilities therein and which would be, according to the petitioner, of the standard of three, four or five stars. It is also the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that his father being an orthodox person, was not agreeable to the needs of the son as regards modernisation of the hotel and the son, therefore, wanted to have his independent hotel. He wanted to suggest that the ideas of both the father and son since were not the same and the father is opposed to the ideas , and hence the son had decided to have an independent hotel. 7.It is also on the record that the petitioner initially created a picture before the courts below that he was not on good terms with his father. However, the record indicates otherwise that the father and the son have been living together all through even till the death of his father, during the pendency of the petition some times in the year 1992 which is also not disputed. In the suit premises i.e. on the ground floor that is the shop area with which we are concerned, there were two tenants, namely Hastimal Bogawat and another is the present respondent-tenant. It is also on the record that when the suit premises were purchased by the landlord, this Hastimal Bogawat was also having some portion in his possession as a tenant, on the first floor. After the purchase of the suit premises by the landlord and after due compromise, this Hastimal Bogawat vacated the complete portion which was in his occupation as a tenant and only the portion of 7½ x 18 ft. which is still with the present respondent-tenant, is with the tenant and the rest of the area is with the landlord including that of the first floor. The position, therefore, was that the frontage of 7½ ft. with the length of 18 ft. is with the tenant and the rest of the area of the ground floor is with the petitioner-landlord which could be said to be in 'L' shape. The areas to the landlord on the ground floor comes to 585 Sq. ft. It is the insistence of the landlord that opening area of 15 ft. with the length of 18 ft. is with the tenant and the rest of the area of the ground floor is with the petitioner-landlord which could be said to be in 'L' shape. The areas to the landlord on the ground floor comes to 585 Sq. ft. It is the insistence of the landlord that opening area of 15 ft. is required for this hotel business and, therefore, he is pressing for his bona fide need of that portion to have his business a good start. It is also not disputed that the landlord has some other area to which a reference is already made in the judgment and order of the Court below and the landlord had already sold the same. The landlord pressed his case on the bona fide need and so much so that he was even ready to give the tenant the rear portion of the same shop which had a opening in the backside lane as according to the petitioner there are other shops and hotels. 8.As against this, Mrs. Ansari, the learned Counsel for the respondent, vehemently argued that the respondent tenant is having the business in a very small area of 7½ x 18 ft. that too a business of simply selling pens and goggles. She further stated that the respondent-tenant is running the shop since last about 20-21 years. Mrs. Ansari further pointed out from the record that the tenant is having a very big family to maintain i.e. it is family of about four brothers consisting of about 18 members and the present shop is the only source of survival and livelihood for the members of the family. Mrs. Ansari, further, argued specifically that if the landlord really wanted to have the premises in question for starting his hotel business, he in ordinary course, could not have locked or kept unused the premises in question for a considerable period of 2 to 3 years, after having got the same vacated from the other tenant, namely, Hastimal Bogawat. Mrs. Ansari further argued that taking into consideration the facts of the case, it will have also to be considered as to who would be the person suffering greater hardship. According to her, it is her client i.e. the tenant who would be virtually thrown on the street if the very source of income and source of maintaining the large family is taken away. According to her, it is her client i.e. the tenant who would be virtually thrown on the street if the very source of income and source of maintaining the large family is taken away. 9.As against the arguments of Mrs. Ansari, Shri Gatne, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord, pointed out before the Court that the respondent-tenant had purchased some premises where they were staying as a tenant and since the tenant himself has become the owner, the respondent-tenant could conveniently shift his business to that Juna Bazar area and, according to Shri Gatne since the tenant had an alternative accommodation available, it could be said that no hardship would have been caused to the tenant, if the tenant could have shifted his business there. Mrs. Ansari, on the other hand, specifically argued that the area in which her client stays though is known as Juna Bazar area, in fact, it is a residential area and further that the area which is purchased by the tenant is of a very small size, i.e. about 41 and some odd sq. metres, which is totally used for residential purposes by his client. The possibility of starting any business in those premises, by no stretch of imagination, could be even thought of. 10.After hearing the arguments and after having gone through the record, I do find much substance in the arguments of Mrs. Ansari. Shri Gatne could not dispute that the shop is the only source for the respondent-tenant. It has also come on the record that it is the only source of income for the respondent-tenant. 11.Shri Gatne, tried to assail the orders of the courts below on the ground that he having offered alternate accommodation to the tenant, the tenant appeared to be adamant and further that the courts below were not justified in observing that the offer is not a bona fide offer. Shri Gatne tried to suggest that the landlord himself was ready to the extent that he would give the back side portion of the shop in question and which according to him, the courts below totally failed to take into consideration. The question remains, when the area was available to the petitioner for starting his business, he did not even initiate any action towards that direction. The question remains, when the area was available to the petitioner for starting his business, he did not even initiate any action towards that direction. On the other hand, the conduct of the landlord in keeping the premises closed for considerable long time is indicative of the fact that the petitioner was not really in bona fide need of the premises in question. On the other hand, it is further seen and which is not disputed that the landlord instead of starting any hotel business therein or making any preparation in that direction, had started another business of electrical goods in the same premises. 12.Another aspect to be seen in the instant matter is that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had filed an affidavit bringing some additional facts to the notice of the Court to which I have already made a reference, that the tenant had purchased Municipal house No. 52-88 i.e. CTS No. 2562 and which are premises used by the tenant for residential purposes for himself and is family members. The matter appeared to have been pending since long and on some occasion, it was adjourned as the parties were reaching to some compromise in the matter. However, till this date, there is no compromise and the matter is required to be taken up for final hearing. During the course of arguments, Mrs. Ansari filed a Rejoinder which, in fact, according to her, is nothing but a say to the affidavit filed by the petitioner in which she has specifically pointed out two things that the house which was purchased by her client i.e. respondent-tenant was for residential purposes and insufficient for starting any business and further that the father of the present petitioner expired on 6-5-1992 and that the petitioner being the only son, has succeeded to the business of his father and, therefore, he is also looking after the hotel business of his father. Shri Gatne, the learned Counsel tried to suggest that the reply filed by way of rejoinder cannot be taken into consideration at such a late stage and in support of this contention Mr. Gatne relied on the decision reported in the case of (Harnamsingh v. Raksha Rani and others)1, reported in 1995 Supp.(4) S.C.C. 591. Shri Gatne, the learned Counsel tried to suggest that the reply filed by way of rejoinder cannot be taken into consideration at such a late stage and in support of this contention Mr. Gatne relied on the decision reported in the case of (Harnamsingh v. Raksha Rani and others)1, reported in 1995 Supp.(4) S.C.C. 591. In this case, as is seen from the judgment, that the tenant during the course of arguments before the Supreme Court wanted to file an affidavit bringing some new facts to the knowledge of the Court. However, the copy thereof was not served on the other side even before the starting of the arguments by the parties. Their Lordships declined to accept that affidavit on the ground that there was no chance for the other side to reply the same and, therefore, Their Lordships declined to accept the affidavit. However, in the present case, in fact, it is just by way of counter-affidavit though it is styled as rejoinder by the respondent-tenant. Another important aspect of the matter is that the points raised in the present affidavit at the eleventh hour are that regarding the death of the father of the petitioner, which is already not disputed by Shri Gatne and it is also not in dispute on the record that he is the only son of his father. The second point which is raised by way of an affidavit by the respondent-tenant at the eleventh hour is that the purchase of the suit premises, which according to her, could not be available for business but it is only being used for residential purposes by the respondent-tenant to which there is also a reference in the evidence on record and hence it cannot be said that the petitioner is being taken by surprise by this affidavit. I have, therefore, no hesitation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to accept the affidavit of the respondent-tenant for taking into consideration at the time of decision of the present petition. 13.Both the courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record and due reasoning reached to the concurrent finding of fact that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide need and that the tenant cannot be evicted on that ground. 13.Both the courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record and due reasoning reached to the concurrent finding of fact that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide need and that the tenant cannot be evicted on that ground. Both the courts below also have rightly held that the tenant would be suffering greater hardship in case a decree of eviction is passed than that of the landlord and I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the said finding of facts. 14.Mrs. Ansari has brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Laxmikant Bhojwani v. Pratapsingh Pardeshi)2, reported in 1997(3) Bom.C.R. 1 (S.C.) : 1996(1) Mh. L.J. 507 and she tried to argue on the basis of this judgment that it would not be open for this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the finding of facts particularly when no material prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner-landlord or particularly when there is no grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. I do agree with the arguments of Mrs. Ansari and I find no justifiable reason to interfere in the matter. 15.In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.