1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2009 Ramniklal R. Shah ...Applicant. v. Satyendra K. Tatuskar ...Respondent. Mr.Sai Chinai a/w Ms Sonal i/by Shetty, adv. for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kachare i/by Dahibawkar & Co., adv., for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 16th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the review petition reviewing the judgment and order passed by this Court on 7th April, 2010 dismissing the Civil Revision Application No.297 of 2009. Delay condoned. 2 Review application be registered and taken up for hearing immediately. 3 This Court had dismissed the revision application filed by 2 the present applicant after giving detailed reasons. This Court confirmed the findings of the appellate Court that the landlord/respondent bonafide required the premises . Judgment of the revision application was dictated in the open Court and at the end of the judgment, the learned counsel for the revision applicant sought time as he intended to challenge the order of this Court, and, therefore, this Court had stayed the execution of the decree till 12th May, 2010. Admittedly, the judgment of this Court in the revision application was challenged before the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition No.14552/2010. S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.5.2010 directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises till the end of September, 2010 subject to filing an usual undertaking within 15 days. 4 The learned counsel for the revision applicant contended that even after dismissal of the SLP, petitioner can approach this Court for review of its own judgment and for this purpose, he relies upon Kunhayammed and Others v. Yamir v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359. Even though legally there is no bar to approach this Court for review of its judgment in spite of dismissal of the SLP, on facts I find no justification to review the order 3 of this Court. 5 Therefore, the review petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)