IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2007 GOVIND KRISHNAJI MANAVI & ORS. ..PETITIONERS (ORIG. DEFENDANTS) V/S SHRI DEVI INDUMATI VIDYARTHI VASATIGRAH PUBLIC TRUST & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS (ORIG. PLAINTIFFS) MR. S.M. KAMBLE, ADVOCATE, FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. P.D. DALVI, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 4. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Respondent No. 1 is a Public Trust and Respondent Nos. 2 to 17 are the Trustees. The suit premises belong to the plaintiff/respondent Trust. Admittedly the defendant no. 1 deceased Govind Krishnaji Manavi was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises for carrying on business. The plaintiffs/respondents filed suit for eviction against the defendants contending that the defendant no. 1 had made permanent additions and alterations in the suit premises without the permission : 2 : of the landlord. Secondly the defendant no.1 had sublet the premises to others and he was not occupying the same for the purpose for which it was let out to him and the plaintiff reasonaly and bonafide require the suit premises for opening the Girls’ Hostel as the plaintiff is running Educational Trust. The defendant no. 1 to 3 denied all the allegations and it was their contention that defendant no. 2 is the son of the defendant no. 1 and they are running the business. After hearing the evidence led by both the parties the trial court passed the decree of eviction and possession on all the three grounds and directed the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to vacate the premises within 90 days. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1994. The Appeal was dismissed. However the Appellate Court approved the decree only on two grounds, i.e. reasonable and bonafide requirement of the trust and the defendant no. 1 had sublet the suit premises to others. Original defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed the present Revision Application challenging the decree of eviction. 2. The learned counsel for the Revision Applicants, who are the original tenants, has taken me through the judgment passed by the courts below. Admittedly the respondent no.1 is a Education Trust running some school. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the : 3 : Trust required the suit premises for the Girls Hostel. Both the courts below accepted this contention. Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant pointed out that immediately after the Appeal was dismissed confirming the decree passed by the trial court, the Respondent No. 1 Trust had issued a Public Notice in the newspaper "Dainik Pudhari" dated 21st February 2003 calling tenders for sale of the suit property. According to him, this itself indicates that the Trust does not bonafide and reasonably require the suit premises for the purpose of Girls Hostel and the reason given was not true. It is not denied that such a public notice was issued. However on behalf of the Trust, Dr. Vishwanath Maruti Gaikwad has filed affidavit stating that the Charity Commissioner has turned down the request to sell the suit property and the Trust in fact intends to use this premises for the Girls Hostel. In view of this development the public notice dated 21/2/2003 need not be given much importance. 3. Both the courts below have considered the evidence before coming to the conclusion that defendant no.1 had let out the premises to others. The evidence on record clearly shows that the defendant no. 3 is the partnership firm, which is carrying on business in the suit premises and the defendant no. 1 was not a partner : 4 : of that firm. He was carrying on his independent business at Nipani, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State. In view of the material on record, I see no irregularity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the findings of the courts below. 4. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)