spb/- 1 cra26-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2010 Mr. Dattatraya Kondiba Wanjale ... Petitioner. (Org.R.No.1/D.No.1) V/s. Smt. Kusum Chintaman Dande ... Respondent. (Org.Appellant/Plntff) --- Mr. D.M. Gupte for the Petitioner. Mr. A.K. Jagtap for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard both sides. 2 The respondent-landlady filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction under section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act for erection of a new building. The suit premises were open land. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, on appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for possession. 3 The lower appellate court held that the respondent requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for erection of a new building. The finding recorded by the lower appellate court about the reasonable and bonafide requirement for the purposes of erection of a new building is a possible finding of fact and requires no interference in exercise of spb/- 2 cra26-10.sxw revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4 The revision application is rejected summarily. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to vacate the suit premises. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for grant of reasonable time subject to filing of a necessary undertaking. The petitioner is granted nine months time to vacate the suit premises subject to his filing of an undertaking in this court in the usual form within four weeks from today. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]