1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 728 OF 2009 Mr.Edward Rodrigues (since deceased, through his legal heirs) 1(a) Mrs.Albertina wd/o Edward Rodrigues & ors. ... Applicants v/s Dr.Simon Cardinal Pimenta ... Respondent Mr.A.Y.Sakhare i/by M.S.Kadu for the applicants. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar with Ms.Martina Sapkal i/by Arun Sapkal & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. The applicant has challenged the judgment of the AppellateCourt of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.705 of 2005. The Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court by allowing the appeal and has directed the defendants i.e. the applicants herein, to hand over the peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on or before 1.12.2009. 2 2. The present civil revision application has been filed not only by the tenant but also by one Harsh Tekmani who claims that he is not a sub-tenant but was residing in the suit premises whenever he visited Mumbai. The very fact that this application has been filed by Harsh Tekmani would indicate his interest in the matter and the contention that he was a mere guest of the original tenant is belied by this fact. Apart from this, the Appellate Court has found that the defendant No.1 i.e. Edward and his family were not occupying the suit premises and had in fact moved out of the premises and that Harsh Tekmani – the applicant No.2, was exclusively residing in the premises. 3. In my opinion, the findings of the Appellate Court cannot be said to be based on conjectures as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants. Apart from this, a notice which was issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, by the Municipal Corporaton was challenged in a suit filed by Harsh Tekmani. All these factors, in my view, indicate that it is he who is residing exclusively in the suit premises. He has also admitted that he pays the outgoings in respect of the suit premises. 4. Civil revision application dismissed. ..... 3