The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the decisions of the Small Causes Court and the District Court, Pune, directing the defendant (tenant) to vacate the suit premises and pay arrears of rent. The case revolved around the tenant's failure to pay rent since 1995 and the landlord's claim of bonafide requirement for the premises. The Small Causes Court had decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, and the decision was affirmed by the District Judge on appeal. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the defendant challenging these rulings.

1. Background of the Case

• Property Details: Two residential blocks on the ground floor of House Property No. 1992, Convent Street, Pune.
• Tenancy Origin: Defendant's father was inducted as a tenant by the original owner, Ms. Perin Behram Gastava.
• Ownership Transfer: Plaintiffs purchased the property in 2008 and became the new landlords.

2. Plaintiff's Claims

• Rent Arrears: Defendant stopped paying rent from 1995. Despite demands, only partial rent was paid from 2008 onwards.
• Bonafide Requirement: Plaintiffs claimed a genuine need for the premises for personal use and intended demolition of the old structure.

3. Defendant's Defense

• Denial of Non-Payment: The defendant contested the claims, stating that rent was paid and additional rooms were let out to them by the original landlord.
• Rebuttal of Bonafide Requirement: The defendant argued that the plaintiffs owned multiple properties and did not need the suit premises.

4. Court Proceedings

• Small Causes Court: Ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the eviction and payment of arrears.
• District Court: Affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the defendant's appeal.
• High Court: Rejected the defendant's petition, upholding the previous rulings.

5. Key Legal Points

• Bonafide Requirement: Both courts found the plaintiffs' claim of genuine need for the premises credible.
• Rent Arrears: The court established the defendant's liability for rent arrears and ordered payment.
• Permanent Alterations: The defendant's alleged alterations to the premises without permission were a point of contention but ultimately not a decisive factor in the judgment.