: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2009 Ganpat Laxman Baikar .. Applicant V/s. Anand Balaram Nakhwa & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Satish P. Shah i/b. Mr. R.K. Yadav for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Bhatekar for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed to challenge the decree passed on 24th January, 2008, in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.199/341/2000, by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by order dated 24th September, 2008, passed in Appeal No.218 of 2008. The grounds on which the ejectment Suit was filed by the plaintiff were that; (i). defendant No.1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises; : 2 : (ii).for bonafide requirement of the landlord; (iii).change of user of the suit premises. 2. Assuming the change of user of the suit premises from eating house to godown would not amount to a change of user, as contemplated under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, as contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the decree has been passed on two other grounds. 3. As regards bonafide requirement of the landlord for the suit premises, the plaintiffs have led evidence to establish that the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 required the premises to set up a business. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the plaintiffs have not indicated from where they were going to get the funds for the business or what was the nature of the business that they wanted to start in the suit premises. In my opinion, these details ought to have been elicited by the defendants by cross-examining the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 has chosen not to cross-examine the : 3 : plaintiffs on this issue. Defendant No.2 could not have challenged the bonafides of the landlords to recover possession of the suit premises as he was not a lawful tenant. 4. The decree has also been passed on the ground of unlawful subletting. The defendant No.2 was cross-examined, where he has categorically admitted that defendant No.1 had let out the suit premises to him in 1996. Although the defendant No.1 has led evidence by examining himself, he has not cared to rebut this evidence. 5. In my opinion, there is no need to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The impugned judgments are well reasoned and do not need to be interfered with in a revision application. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. .......