1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2008 Shri Subhash Ramchandra Shekatkar. ..Applicant. Vs. Shri Jambukumar Jivaraj Doshi & Ors. ... Respondents. ..... Ms. Kavita Pawar i/b Sanjay Kshirsagar, for the Applicant. Mr. M.A. Utagikar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 26 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Applicant­tenant has been evicted from the suit premises on the ground that he was in arrears of payment of rent and that the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 require the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation. 3. The only contention raised before me is that the Court below have rendered findings that the Applicant has alternate residential premises which are suitable for him and therefore he need not continue in occupation of the suit premises. However, alternate premises are not that of the Applicant but acquired by his sons. The Applicant has no connection there with. If acquisition of the premises is by the sons of the Applicant, then, evicting him from the suit premises is not legal. Secondly, on the 2 ground of default as well, the Court below failed to appreciate that the application for fixation of standard rent was made and therefore the decree on the grounds of default could not have been passed. 4. I am unable to accept either of these contentions. The Courts below have concurrently found that the evidence on record shows that the premises at Ganesh Nagar, Solapur belong to the Petitioner. The marriage invitation card was produced which shows premises belonging to the Applicant and is residential address. The Courts below were in no error in holding that in such a situation it was for the Applicant to show that the premises belong to his sons and he has no connection there with. Such evidence has not been led and hence the Court below decreed the suit on the basis of landlord’s evidence. 5. Further, it is brought to my notice that both Courts below have rendered findings that so far as default is concerned on notice being received, the tenant filed application for fixation of standard rent. However, that application was not pursued and stood abated and disposed of. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to quantum of rent. In such circumstances, the requirement of statutory provisions then in force are complied with. The decree on the ground of arrears of rent also cannot be faulted. 6. In the light of findings of the Courts below which are consistent with oral and documentary evidence on record, there is no 3 reason to interfere with the orders under challenge in the Revisional Jurisdiction. There is no error of jurisdiction or perversity which warrants such interference. 7. The Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. Ad­interim Order dated 10.12.2008 stands vacated. 8. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant states that the Applicant requires three months time to vacate the suit premises. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Interest of justice would be served if three months time is granted to vacate the suit premises on the Applicant filing an undertaking in this Court on usual terms within period of 15 days from today. If such an undertaking is filed, three months time to vacate the suit premises is granted. In default, the decree becomes executable forthwith. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)