1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2009 Mr. Prashant Arvind Shah and ors. ..Applicants. Vs. Shahrukh K. Irani and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar i/by S.H.Bhatt & Company for the Applicants. Mr. S.K. Irani present in person. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 14/10/2009 PC : 1 This is a revision application filed by the original tenants against the concurrent decrees of the two lower courts ordering eviction. The eviction is directed on two grounds i.e. bonafide requirement of the landlord and the acquisition of alternate accommodation by the tenants. I have perused the record in order to ascertain as to what was the alternate accommodation acquired by the tenant. I find that the 2 suit was filed against the father of the applicants. It is an admitted position that the premises in question was adm. 1000-sq. ft. and it is also admitted that out of which 660 sq. ft. Was allotted to a person who claimed to be the sub tenant leaving behind an area of 440 sq. ft. to the original tenant. The evidence of the defendants-tenants indicates that their father acquired the alternate premises at Malad and the same was adm. 540sq.ft. The acquired premises is larger than the suit premises that was in possession of the applicants father. Apart from this, I find that the present applicants have chosen not to produce the purchase document which would have confirmed the area of the flat at Malad. This evidence was exclusively in possession of the tenants and the onus was on them to produce this document in case they wished to contend that the premises at Malad was inadequate. It is sought to be contended that Malad is far away. I am not convinced about this argument. Malad is part and parcel of Mumbai. It is within the limits of Municipal 3 Corporation of Mumbai. In this view of the matter, I do feel it necessary to answer the issue pertaining to bonafide requirement. In the circumstances, this application is rejected. 2 At this stage, Advocate appearing for the applicants states that he would like to challenge this order before the Apex Court and therefore, he seeks a stay of execution. Subject to filing an undertaking by the applicant and all adult members of his family who are residing in the suit premises, stating that they are alone in possession of the suit premises, and that they will not create any third party right or part with possession in respect of the suit premises or any part thereof, on or before 4.11.2009, the decree will not be executed for a period of 60 days from today. ( R.S.MOHITE, J. )