: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2010 Satish R. Shah ... Applicant V/s. Lilawati Paraskumar Oswal ... Respondent Mr.Manoj Patil for Applicant None for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The courts have held that the plaintiff had proved his case that the defendant No.1, applicant herein, was a defaulter in payment of rent. The Courts have also accepted the landlady’s case that she required the suit premises bonafide for her use and occupation and that greater hardship would be caused to her if the decree for eviction was not passed. The Courts have also held that the landlord had established that the defendant tenant was not using the suit premises for more than six months. 2. Significantly, the applicant herein has not crossexamined the plaintiff at all nor has the applicant led evidence in rebuttal. Mere production of photographs or a : 2 : document from the Kolhapur Mahanagar Palika would not constitute evidence. Besides the contention of the learned advocate that there are pleadings in the applicant’s written statement to indicate that, the rent agreed was not Rs.3,000/- but a lesser amount, also cannot be accepted. Unless the tenant proves and establishes that the rent was not the amount demanded by the plaintiff the question of accepting the tenant’s version does not arise. In any event, since the applicant has not deposited the amount of rent in Court nor had she filed a standard rent application, I see no reason to interfere with the decree passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court has confirmed that decree. 3. In view of the above, the civil revision application is dismissed.