KASHINATH BABLI PARAB Vs. ANTONIO MARIANO ANTAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in both the Petitions. Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Administrative Tribunal has rejected the petitioners appeals on the basis that there was no need to examine the grounds pertaining to the existence of a bonafide need of the premises by the respondents-landlords. This contention is correct. Indeed, the Tribunal has observed vide paragraph 14 (page No. 97 of writ petition No. 39 of 2007) that:

(3.) In this view of the matter, though it is contended by Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents that the finding of the lower court which is confirmed by the Tribunal is on the basis that the respondents need the premises bonafide, I am of view the appellate court has nonetheless failed to examine the grounds raised by the petitioners from the point of view of bonafide need of the respondents. This is because the appellate court was of the view that no question of bonafides arise where the landlords seek eviction under Section 23.