been purchased on 23.7.2007 and present petition for ejectment had been filed on 30.10.2007 and as such bonafide personal necessity did not arise in the present situation. Admittedly, the relief claimed earlier was under Section 4 of the Act and for payment of arrears of rent but requirement for personal necessity can arise at a subsequent stage. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the premises has required by the landlords. Even otherwise during the pendency of the present petition, the possession of the premises had been taken by the landlords in execution proceedings. Certified copy of order dated 28.1.2012 has been placed on record to show that the counsel for the decree holders made a statement that possession of the disputed shop was given to DH, therefore, he does not want to proceed further with the present execution petition as the same has become fully satisfied and in view of the aforesaid statement, the execution petition stood disposed off being fully satisfied. This fact is not denied by the counsel for the petitioner.
