JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1985 whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by Small Causes Court, Pune, in Civil Suit No. 785 of 1981 whereby the learned Small Causes Judge had decreed the suit of the present petitioners. 2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the controversy. The petitioners father Motiram Bhaichand Shah was the owner of the house No. 132, Shukrawar Peth, Pune where one Ganesh Jogdeo was in occupation of a shop as a tenant. The original landlord Motiram Shah required the vacant possession of the shop which was in possession of Ganesh Jogdeo (hereinafter referred to as "suit shop" for convenience) for the purposes of his bona fide requirement of running a shop. Ganesh Jogdeo was conducting a tailoring shop in the suit shop. During the pendency of the suit in trial Court itself, both Motiram Shah and Ganesh Jogdeo expired. They were represented by their L.Rs. who are presently contesting the present lis. 3. One L.R. of deceased Motiram Shah named Vijay contended, after getting himself on record as L.R., of Motiram Shah, that he needed the vacant possession of the suit shop for running his shop. Deceased Ganesh Jogdeo was represented by his wife Smt. Indira and his grand children named, Vaman, Shashikant, Shriram. Out of them Shashikant pleaded that he required the said suit shop for storing his fruits as he like his brothers happens to be doing the business of selling the fruits on hawker's cart. The other brothers were also doing the same business but they were storing the fruits in verandah of their own "Wada" situated in the same vicinity of Sukrawar Peth. Shashikant Jogdeo contended that the said verandah happens to be occupied by his brother for storing the fruits and, therefore, he was unable to store his fruits there in the said verandah. The trial Court rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the tenants side and decreed the suit holding that the landlord's L.Rs. proved that they need the vacant possession of the suit shop for their bona fide and genuine requirement. The trial Court rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the tenants side and decreed the suit holding that the landlord's L.Rs. proved that they need the vacant possession of the suit shop for their bona fide and genuine requirement. The learned trial Judge also held that there would be no hardship to the tenant side if they are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the L.Rs. of landlord, if the hardship is compared in between both of them. 4. The present respondents, the tenants side, filed an appeal to the District Court, Pune for impugning the said judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court in favour of the petitioners. The learned Additional District Judge, Pune, by deciding the said appeal held that the brothers of Vijay were having the possession of a shop four times bigger than the suit shop and, therefore, Vijay can be accommodated in the said bigger shop for running his own business. The hardship would be more to the tenant side more particularly to Shashikant if the tenant side is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop in favour of the landlord side. Thus, the learned Additional District Judge, Pune, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court, the trial Court, and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5. There has been change in circumstances during the pendency of writ petition in this Court. Shashikant expired and has been represented by his son named Prashant Jogdeo who is appearing as respondent No. 30 in this petition. He informed this Court vide his affidavit that during the pendency of the lis, the old Wada was sold to a builder and construction company. He informed vide that affidavit that the said Wada was bequeathed by Ganesh in favour of his grand sons and the mother of those grand sons as well as his wife Indira were appointed as administrators to execute the said Will. In view of that Will, Indira, wife of Ganesh Jogdeo, and her daughter-in-laws sought the permission from District Court, Pune to sell said Wada in the interest of those minors legatees. Thus, the said Wada was sold to M/s. Joya Construction which constructed a complex on the site of the said Wada. In view of that Will, Indira, wife of Ganesh Jogdeo, and her daughter-in-laws sought the permission from District Court, Pune to sell said Wada in the interest of those minors legatees. Thus, the said Wada was sold to M/s. Joya Construction which constructed a complex on the site of the said Wada. Three grand sons received a flat to reside and another flat was given to other two grand sons. Shri Hardikar, their Counsel, was unable to give measurements of each flat though affidavit has been filed. Shri Hardikar submitted, answering to query of this Court, that the said Wada was sold to M/s. Joya Constructions in the year 1989, after the decision of the first appeal by Additional District Judge, Pune and after filing of this writ petition. 6. Vijay is alive and he reiterated his need for the said suit shop by contending that his need is genuine and bona fide and he needs the suit shop for starting his own business. Shri Gokhale, his Counsel, submitted that his age is 46 years at present. Shri Gokhale contended that if the vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over to Vijay he would be put to hardship because though he is physically fit to conduct a business, he would be deprived of that on account of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune who set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court, Pune in favour of the petitioners. Shri Gokhale submitted that the respondents could have made the arrangement of solving their difficulty when they sold their Wada to M/s. Joya Constructions but they did not do it. He submitted that this conduct of the respondents shows that without justifiable ground, they are holding the suit shop by putting the petitioners to hardship. He submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit shop. He further submitted that the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune is totally against the evidence on record and against the provisions of law and, therefore, it needs to be set aside by this Court exercising jurisdiction and authority in view of Articles 226, 227 the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune is totally against the evidence on record and against the provisions of law and, therefore, it needs to be set aside by this Court exercising jurisdiction and authority in view of Articles 226, 227 the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court, (1) (Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) v. Traders Agencies and another)1, reported in 1996(5) S.C.C. 344 and (2) (Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan)2, reported in 1996(5) S.C.C. 353 . 7. Shri Hardikar submitted on behalf of the respondents that the two flats in which the respondents are staying are very much insufficient for them to reside and, therefore, the L.Rs. of deceased Shashikant cannot part with the suit shop. He further submitted that the L.Rs. of deceased Shashikant are doing the same business of selling the fruits on hawker's cart and they need the suit shop for storing those fruits. He supported the judgment which has been passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune which has been assailed by this petition. 8. Shri Gokhale submitted that the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court quoted supra reiterate that the landlord cannot be asked to search out other alternatives accommodation for adjusting his needs. However, he is entitled to get back possession of the suit premises when his need happens to be genuine and bona fide. He submitted that in such cases, genuineness and bona fides in context with need of the landlord and the resultant hardship need to be considered appropriately. 9. In the judgment of the Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) v. Traders Agencies and another (supra), the Supreme Court held that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and he is the best Judge of his residential requirement. If the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by him as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient, it is not for the courts to dictate to him to continue to occupy such premises. In the matter of Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan (supra), the Supreme Court held that the landlord is best judge of his residential requirement. Whether an alternative accommodation was actually available would depend upon landlord's right to such accommodation. In the matter of Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan (supra), the Supreme Court held that the landlord is best judge of his residential requirement. Whether an alternative accommodation was actually available would depend upon landlord's right to such accommodation. The landlady was residing with a family friend since death of her husband and as such required the premises bona fide for her residential use. The rent controller had allowed her application for getting the possession of the suit premises. However, High Court in revision reversed the Rent Controller's order on the ground that the landlady being an old lady of 70 years having no one to look after, should continue to stay with the same family friend. In such facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the appellant cannot be deprived of beneficial enjoyment of her property. 10. In the present case, the trial Court had held that Vijay had sufficient knowledge and experience to start cloth and stationery business when he happens to be an employee and not having the independent source of income. The said Court also held that Vijay and other plaintiffs were owners of the building where the suit shop was situated. The trial Court pointed out that defendant Shashikant was doing the business of selling fruits on hawkar's cart during day time but was not having space for storing the fruits in the night and, therefore, wanted to use the suit shop for that purpose. In that context, the trial Court pointed out that his other brothers were doing the same business and were storing the fruits in verandah of the Wada where they were residing. It is also pointed out that Shashikant stated in his cross-examination that plaintiff Vijay might be requiring the suit premises for his own business. That sentence has been used by trial Court for coming to the conclusion, in addition to other circumstances, that the need of plaintiff Vijay was genuine and bona fide. A suggestion was made to Vijay on the side of the original defendants that he can start his business in the shop in the possession of plaintiff Anant who was doing the business of grocery inside the grocery shop. Quoting this, the trial Court pointed out that Vijay cannot be compelled to ask Anant to accommodate him in the shop in his possession where he happens to be running his own business. 11. Quoting this, the trial Court pointed out that Vijay cannot be compelled to ask Anant to accommodate him in the shop in his possession where he happens to be running his own business. 11. The trial Court pointed out that Vijay had the knowledge, experience and funds for starting a business of cloth/stationery, his said need was genuine and bona fide. He cannot be compelled to ask Anant to accommodate him in his shop. At the same time, the trial Court pointed out that the original defendant Shashikant can also request his brothers to allow him to store the fruits in verandah like them or he can do it like them. By pointing out this aspect of the matter, the trial Court concluded that there will be no hardship to the original defendants if they are asked to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the plaintiffs, more specially to plaintiff Vijay. 12. The Additional District Judge pointed out the same circumstances and pointed out that the statement made by Shashikant in the cross-examination cannot be taken to be admission given by him admitting that the need expressed by Vijay was genuine and bona fide. The Additional District Judge, Pune pointed out that the shop which was in possession of Anant was four times bigger than the suit shop and, therefore, Vijay could be well accommodated in the said shop and he could start his business there. The Additional District Judge pointed out that Shashikant could not do like his brothers by storing his fruits in night in the verandah. Therefore, he advised the plaintiff Vijay and other plaintiffs to adjust themselves to accommodate Vijay in the shop which was possessed by Anant. By such advice, the learned Additional District Judge concluded that there would be more hardship to defendant Shashikant if he is directed to hand over the possession of the suit shop which he was using for storing the fruits in the night, to Vijay who happens to be demanding the possession of the suit shop for starting his business. While doing so, the Additional District Judge has lost sight of all important facets of the matter which can be enumerated as mentioned hereunder. 13. The Additional District Judge could not have been benefited by the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court. While doing so, the Additional District Judge has lost sight of all important facets of the matter which can be enumerated as mentioned hereunder. 13. The Additional District Judge could not have been benefited by the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court. Those judgments are delivered by the Supreme Court after the said appeal was decided by the Additional District Judge. However, he could have interpreted the relevant provisions of law in the same fashion in which Supreme Court interpreted. The problems indicated by the Rent Act are socio-economic problems. They are likely to affect adversely the interested groups. No doubt, the enactments of Rent Act are meant for giving people the shelter for residence and the security for conducting the business. The direction of enacting the Rent Act was towards providing a shelter and protection to the tenants from being evicted by the landlords at their whims and without justifications. But nonetheless it was never aimed to rob the landlords from their rightful exercise of the rights in respect of the properties owned by them and that has been reflected in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan (supra) and Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) v. Traders Agencies and another (supra). In the matter of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar's case the appellant Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar was the owner of the suit premises and she was not owning any other premises in the city of Mumbai. Her husband was tenant of a premises but that was occupied by her husband's brother and, therefore, in such circumstances the said premises were not available to her. She had other flat on leave and licence basis. The said flat was in the name of M/s. A.F. Ferguson Co. where Eknath Kshirsagar was working as Director. The firm had allowed said Eknath to use that flat temporarily on leave and licence basis in October 1972 as one Mr. Kalra, another Director, had been transferred to Delhi. The Supreme Court held in that matter that said Eknath could not have, as of right, occupied that flat and, therefore, said flat was not available to Meenal Kshirsagar to reside. 14. Kalra, another Director, had been transferred to Delhi. The Supreme Court held in that matter that said Eknath could not have, as of right, occupied that flat and, therefore, said flat was not available to Meenal Kshirsagar to reside. 14. In Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar's case the Supreme Court has considered the ratio of its judgment in Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan (supra) where it was held by the Supreme Court that the landlord was the best Judge of his residential requirement. He had a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court also referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in (Rustomji Dinshaw Billimoria v. Dosibai Rustomji Master)3, 1921(23) Bom.L.R. 850, wherein the Bombay High Court held:--- "Ordinarily speaking, an owner of premises, if he says he wishes to use them for his own purposes, is entitled to do so. What the Rent Act endeavours to provide for, is the case of a landlord who evicts the existing tenants in order that he may let them to another tenant at a higher rent, or exact a higher rent from the tenant on a threat of eviction. It seems to me that the question in this case whether the plaintiff was reasonable dissatisfied with the premises which he rented in Girgaon is irrelevant, because in any event the plaintiff was entitled to live in his own premises. He was not bound to continue in rented premises with all the uncertainties of that tenure." In the matter of (Basant Lal Saha v. P.C. Chakravarty)4, reported in A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 249, the Calcutta High Court held:--- "Where a landlord seeks to eject a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement within the meaning of proviso (f) of section 11(1) of the Rent Control Act, 1948, he has to satisfy three tests: (i) That he requires the premises; (ii) That such requirement is for his own occupation; and (iii) That his requirement is bona fide. The word require means more than mere wish or convenience or fancy of the landlord. The landlord must show some need or necessity. The word require means more than mere wish or convenience or fancy of the landlord. The landlord must show some need or necessity. But it does not mean an absolute need or an absolute requirement in the sense that the landlord will not have any accommodation of any description and that he must actually be on the street before he can demand his own house for his own occupation." 15. Keeping in view the observations of Bombay High Court, Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court in the cases quoted supra, the Additional District Judge, Pune should have adverted his attention to the evidence before him and the submissions advanced by rival litigants and he should have thereafter compared reasonably as to what happens to be the need of the landlord and what happens to be the need of the tenant. He should have adverted his attention to the possibility of landlord accommodating himself in his brothers shop so also tenant accommodating himself with his brother in the space which was available in Wada for storing the fruits. While doing so, he should have been reasonable and impartial in weighing the scale of need and hardship which is the duty of the Court to do so. When the landlord and tenant are on equal levels, human experience has to be brought in action for the purposes of understanding the reality of the need and hardship put forth for consideration, by the Court. As the learned Additional District Judge said in his judgment that Vijay should have asked his brother to accommodate him in his shop for business, defendant Shashikant could have also made same sort of prayers even to other brothers. He should have also considered that Wada is always having more space open for use and in such Wada there would have been more space available for storing the fruits if at all he was to do so. Therefore, landlord Vijay could not have accommodated defendant Shashikant. Apart from that, the hawkers selling the fruits on hawker's cart, as human experience tells, do not possess more fruits which can be stored for selling them on the next day, because business of selling the fruits always deals with perishable articles. Therefore, the learned District Judge should have discarded the difficulty put forth by Shashikant on that point. 16. Apart from that, the hawkers selling the fruits on hawker's cart, as human experience tells, do not possess more fruits which can be stored for selling them on the next day, because business of selling the fruits always deals with perishable articles. Therefore, the learned District Judge should have discarded the difficulty put forth by Shashikant on that point. 16. The human experience tells that though they are brothers, one brother may not necessarily and in all cases accommodate another brother in his existing business. Therefore, it was uncertain whether Anant would have accommodated Vijay in his business by shedding out the available space to him to run his business which was of course quite settled. When that was so, the Court of Additional District Judge, Pune had no jurisdiction to advise the landlord Vijay to ask Anant, his brother to accommodate him in his shop for conducting his own business independently. 17. Apart from that, when during the pendency of such litigation in respect of the suit premises required by the landlord on the ground of genuine and bona fide requirement, such tenant would not firstly endeavour in selling his self-owned premises to a builder/constructing company for constructing a residential or commercial complex. He would insist that he should be accommodated by providing him a suitable commercial shop or suitable residential accommodation when he is under the threat of being evicted on account of the pending litigation in that context. When such a tenant sells his own premises to such building construction company without reserving such accommodation for himself, it would indirectly mean that he could afford to sacrifice his such need for a good remuneration in money. It means that his need is co-related with the need of getting money or his said need is liable to be sacrified for money as a compensation. It also indirectly suggests that his continuation in the litigation is motivated with oblique direction towards getting rewarded by money. The sum and substance of all this is indicating towards one point only and that is that such need put forth cannot be treated to be genuine and bona fide. It can be quantified in terms of money and if that is done or if that is possible. The sum and substance of all this is indicating towards one point only and that is that such need put forth cannot be treated to be genuine and bona fide. It can be quantified in terms of money and if that is done or if that is possible. It again leads to an oblique intention of continuing fighting in the litigation in respect of the provisions of the Rent Act or litigation in respect of "genuine and bona fide need"; "comparative hardship". 18. The Court has to compare the contentions raised by such landlords and tenants in a realistic way like a reasonable prudent man and has to inform itself by human experience in life. It is the right of the property owner to enjoy his such right beneficial to his interest and when he is in genuine and bona fide need, he stands at higher level than the tenant situated in such set of facts and circumstances. When the Court comes to a conclusion that his need is genuine and bona fide, the scale will have to be tilted in favour of the landlord rather than the tenant and when there is evidence on record to prove or indicate reasonably that the need and hardship of a tenant can be brought in monetary equations the case of landlord becomes stronger. 19. The judgment and order which has been assailed by this writ petition is totally without any discussion on reasonable aspect of the matter. The learned Judge has failed in drawing correct conclusions which would be consistent with the evidence on record. The learned Judge failed to take a view consistent with the evidence on record, provisions of law, interpretation of law with realistic view. The hollowness in his conclusion has been fortified by further events about which the affidavit filed on behalf of the tenant Shashikant speaks. Wada had been sold to a builder and construction company during the pendency of litigation and the tenant has sacrificed his need and hardship for getting compensation in terms of money. 20. Thus, the said judgment cannot survive and, therefore, this Court has to quash it by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the writ petition stands allowed. 20. Thus, the said judgment cannot survive and, therefore, this Court has to quash it by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the writ petition stands allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune assailed by this writ petition stands set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court stands restored. The petition stands allowed with costs. Rule stands made absolute accordingly. 21. Mr. Hardikar prayed for time to vacate the suit premises till the end of December 2002. The suit has been decided on 16-7-1984 and the cause is being decided so far as this Court is concerned, in the month of April 2002. Vijay, the landlord-plaintiff who was 25 years old when the suit was filed, has become 46 years old. How long he should keep himself hanging for starting the business. Thus, prayer for staying the operation of this order stands rejected. 22. Parties to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. -----