: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.416 OF 2009 Dnyaneshwar Sahebrao Dhaybar .. Applicant V/s. Laxman Bolaji @ Manohar Divekar .. Respondent Mr. A.B. Shinde for the Applicant. Mr. D.M. Gupte for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below by which the Courts have held that the suit premises have not been used by the applicant for more than six months without any reasonable cause. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not accepted the contention of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises. However, in view of the fact that the suit premises have not been used for more than six months preceding the date of the filing of the : 2 : Suit, without reasonable cause, a decree for eviction has been passed against the applicant. The applicant has admitted that he has acquired new premises in Erandavane. In fact, he had mentioned this address while filing the Appeal Memo. However, according to the applicant, his son uses the suit premises as he is studying for his MBA degree. The applicant has not produced any documentary evidence to indicate that the suit premises are in fact in use. There is material on record to indicate that the telephone connection which was available in the suit premises has been disconnected and is now connected in the new premises at Erandavane. The electricity bill which was produced was of the premises in the Erandavane and not the bill for the suit premises. Undoubtedly, the applicant has examined two persons in support of his case. However, in my opinion, the evidence is insufficient to indicate that either the applicant or his son are using the suit premises. In fact, the witnesses of the applicant have not stated a word about the use of the suit premises by his son. : 3 : 2. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. D. Malini M. Gopal & Ors. vs. Samirmal Amolakchand Kucheria & Ors., reported in 222 Bom. R.C. 1987, in support of his submission that the landlord has failed to prove that the suit premises were not used. However, this judgment does not help the case of the applicant since the respondent has not been able to rebut the evidence produced by the landlord, effectively. 3. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhukar Sadashiv Parkhi vs. Smt. Satyabhamabai Ganesh Sakrikar & Ors., reported in 1980 Bom.C.R. 182. This case discusses the legal test of suitability of alternate accommodation. This judgment would not apply in the present case since the ground on which the tenant has been evicted is of non-user of the suit premises for more than six months prior to the filing of the Suit. : 4 : 4. In the case of Ravinbhushan Anant Datar & Anr. vs. Waman Dattatray Purohit, reported in 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 100, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that in a case where the tenant is evicted for non-user of the suit premises, it is for the tenant to produce documentary evidence to prove that he continues to use the premises and if no such evidence is led, adverse inference can be drawn against the tenant. In my view, no case for interference is made out in view of the concurrent findings of facts. 5. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 6. On the application made by the learned Advocate for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of three months from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant and all the adults in his family to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......