1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2009 Free India Metal Products Company ..Applicants V/s. Firoz Mohsin Banatwala & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.R.V. Govilkar with Mr.V. S.Pandey i/by Mr.E.K.Sasidharan for the applicants. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Nandlal Kothari & Sabir for the respondent nos.1 to 3. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 27th July, 2009. PC 1 This is a Civil Revision Application filed by the original tenant impugning two judgments of the lower Court decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have concurrently find that the plaintiff has proved his case of bonafide requirement. The plaintiff’s case was that his son has commenced practice as an Advocate in the year 1995 and required the premises for his office. His alternative case was that his daughter has acquired various qualifications and required the premises for starting her office as a Data Entry Operator. The premises in question is small commercial premises admeasuring about 264 square feet. On behalf of the applicants it was contended that there were two premises available with the landlord on the ground floor being shop no.5 2 and shop no.7. I have perused the evidence on record. It is clear from the evidence that these shops are not vacant and are occupied by a partnership firm for a different kind of business. The area of these shops are also very small. One of the shop is being used as godown admeasuring 300 sq.feet , whereas other shop is only about 12 sq. feet. Since the finding is that these shops are not vacant, the contention raised on behalf of the applicants must fail. Advocate for the applicants then contended that the record indicated that fresh tenancy was created in respect of some premises on the higher floors. The trial Court has held that these premises were however residential in nature. At least in so far as daughter is concerned, her computer related business would be commercial in nature. It was contended that the son had taken Sanad in the year 1995 and as far as his requirement is concerned, it could have been satisfied by allowing him to use the premises on the higher floor. It was therefore, contended that creation of tenancy on higher floor was malafide. This contention is not acceptable. Even assuming that the son has taken sanad in the year 1995, his requirement for office would not have been immediately occurred in the year 1999. It was open for the plaintiff to contend that the requirement for office could have been arisen thereafter. In so far as requirement of daughter is concerned, it is very clear that she has obtained some professional certificates in the year 2002. Her requirement is therefore, current. Advocate for the applicants placing reliance upon the judgment of the single Judge of this Court in the case of Kishinchand Murjimal Vs Bai Kalavati Hansraj Dwarkadas reported in Vol.LXXIV BLR 623, sought to contend that requirement of the son and daughter could have been accomodated on the higher floors. The word residential includes places like hospital, marriage halls where people temporarily resides. There is no substance in this contention because computer related business does not require anybody to temporarily reside in the premises. In the circumstances, I find no substance in the 3 Revision. Civil Revision Application is therefore, rejected. 2 Advocate for the applicants states that the applicant alone is in sole occupation and possession of the suit premises as of today and if the stay which is operating, is continued for a period of eight weeks from today, he will not create any third party rights and will not part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof except to the respondents but subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. He has made this statement after taking instructions from the partner of the applicants’ firm Mr.Kiran Dharia. The statement is accepted. On behalf of the partnership firm, written undertaking in this regard will be filed within a period of one week from today. In view of acceptance of the statement and if the undertaking is filed within a period of one week, the interim relief which is operating, will remain in force for a period of eight weeks from today. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4