SM 1 41.cra.462.10.ca.576.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 462 OF 2010 Kamalakar R. Bhagat and others ....Applicants Versus Gulab K. Navale through heirs and others ....Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 576 OF 2010 Dattatrya S. Kokil and others ....Applicants Versus Gulab K. Navale through heirs and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Applicant in CRA No. 1462 of 2010. Mr. Prashant P. More for the Applicants in CRA No. 576 of 2010. Mr. Vishal Gawde for the Respondent Nos. 1A to 1E in both the CRAs. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 1 ST JULY, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These two Revision Applications are filed by the original Defendants in Civil Suit No. 399 of 1989 filed by the SM 2 41.cra.462.10.ca.576.10 original Plaintiff Gulab Kondiba Navale, the predecessor of the Respondents for eviction and vacant possession of the suit plot. Admittedly, the suit plot originally belonged to one Gangubai Kondiba Navale and the Plaintiff Gulab Kondiba Navale. The open plot was leased out to one Mohanlal Shah for a period of 20 years on 10 th February, 1949 on fixed rent of Rs.40/- per month. The lease could be extended for period of further 20 years, with consent of the parties, on expiry lease period of first 20 years. The lessee was allowed raise structure on the said plot and to use the same. As per the terms of contract, the lessee was to remove all the material of his structure on the expiry of the lease period. The original lessee Mohanlal Shah assigned his leasehold rights on the said plot in favour of one Shankar Kokil, the predecessor of Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, on same terms and conditions. The original period of lease expired on 9 th February, 1969. Said Shankar Kokil opted to exercise choice for extension of lease period for further 20 years and issued a notice dated 16 th October, 1968 to the said SM 3 41.cra.462.10.ca.576.10 effect to the Plaintiff. The extended period also came to an end on 9 th February, 1989. Admittedly, before or after expiry of that period, there was no request for extension of lease period nor it was extended. The Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and possession on the ground of bonafide requirement. According to him, period of lease was over and size of his family has substantially increased and, therefore, he wanted the said plot for construction of a house to meet the requirements of all the family members. Defendant No. 9 Kamalakar is residing in the premises of that plot as a tenant of Kokil family. 3. After hearing the evidence for both the parties, the Trial Court held that the Plaintiff required the suit plot reasonably and bonafide for construction of a house for himself and his family members. Accordingly, the suit came to be decreed. As per the decree, the Defendants were required to hand over vacant possession of the plot within three months after demolishing the SM 4 41.cra.462.10.ca.576.10 super structure standing thereon. The said judgment and decree were challenged by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the legal representatives of Shankar Kokil by filing Civil Appeal No. 280 of 1998. The Defendant No. 9 Kamalakar Bhagat and others challenged the said judgment by filing Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1998. Both the Appeals were heard and dismissed by a common judgment dated 25 th November, 1999 by the learned District Judge, Pune. The Appellate Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also gave clear finding that not only the Plaintiffs required the suit plot bonafide for construction of a house for self and family members but the Defendants had also acquired alternate accommodation for which evidence was on record. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of facts and the decree, the original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred CRA No. 576 of 2010 and original Defendant No. 9 has preferred CRA No. 462 of 2010. SM 5 41.cra.462.10.ca.576.10 4. After perusal of the record and finding of the Trial Court and reasons given by both the Courts below, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said findings and decree. Mr. Tajane, learned Counsel for the original Defendant No. 9 contended that the Plaintiff had not submitted any plan for construction before the municipal authorities. Mr. Tajane, learned Counsel also contended that no specific issue was raised about the hardship which would be faced by the party. Even though, there is no specific issue, there is discussion on this subject in the Judgment. The evidence on record clearly shows that the family of the Plaintiff has substantially increased during last 60 years and to cater the needs of the members of his family, it is necessary for the Plaintiffs to make construction of a house. There is no reason to disbelieve the claim and the evidence. They have also lead sufficient evidence to show that they had financial provision with them and also they had approached certain bank for financial assistance for construction of the house. Taking into consideration SM 6 41.cra.462.10.ca.576.10 the material on record, I find no valid defence in the matter. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Revision Applications are dismissed. 6. A request made by the learned Counsel for the Revision Applicants to stay this order for a period of four weeks is refused, as the Applicants are not willing to give undertaking to vacate the premises within any specified period. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)