The respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was ultimately allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 27.07.2004. After briefly noticing the facts of the case the High Court accepted the finding of the Appellate Bench that the appellant had not left the premises with the intention of staying with her brother permanently. The High Court also accepted the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court that the appellant had no share in the flat in Ashoka Apartments and therefore had no right to stay therein. However, the High Court was impressed by the subsequent events which were brought to its notice by a civil application. The subsequent events which impressed the High Court were that the appellant's mother had died in the year 1976 and her sister-in-law had also died in the year 1982. Her brother was residing permanently in Goa to look after the ancestral family property. The Learned Judge held that apart from the appellant all the others who were earlier residing with the appellant had either expired or had settled down elsewhere and therefore the need of the other family members did not survive. The High Court concluded that her brother being a bachelor the appellant has also inherited a share in his flat at Ashoka Apartments and thus became a co-owner having a right to reside in the flat in Ashoka Apartments. Her brother no doubt was also a co-owner of the premises since he owned the premises jointly with her late brother. In view of the fact that she as a co-owner had a right to reside in the premises her need of her own apartment did not survive. The High Court therefore concluded that in the changed circumstances and subsequent events which happened during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court the need of the appellant did not survive and therefore the decree passed by the Appellate Court deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the eviction petition was rejected. Having noticed the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Courts below we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed. The finding of bona fide personal need recorded by the Appellate Court is a finding of fact based on the evidence on record. We have considered the evidence on record and we find that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court did not deserve to be set aside. In fact the High Court also was of the same view but in the changed circumstances having regard to the events that took place during the pendency of the writ petition the High Court interfered with the order of the Appellate Court. We hold that the High Court was not justified in doing so. It cannot be lost sight of that the premises which the appellant required for her personal bona fide need belonged to her. Submit