1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLIATION NO.258/2008 Ravindra Pandurang Oak and another Petitioners Vs. Prabhakar Shankar Walhekar Respondent Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Apte for the respondent CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR,J. DATE : 16th December,2008 P.C. 1] The concurrent findings of the lower Courts warrant no interference. Admittedly the tenant had left the suit premises. The only question is whether the petitioner and his brother had occupied the premises as a member of the family and as a tenant. Upon analysing the evidence both the Courts have disbelieved the petitioner's case in this regard. I also find no reason to believe it. For instance the petitioner did not even produce the ration card of the relevant time which could have indicated where the petitioner was residing at relevant time .The only excuse is that in the year 2000 a new ration card was obtained and the old ration card was surrendered. No attempt was made to produce the ration card. In the circumstances the C.R.A. is dismissed. 2 2] The time is extended to vacate the suit premises upto 20th February,2009. 3] After this order was dictated a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to grant six months time to vacate the premises upon a condition that the petitioner accepts the judgments of the lower Courts. Only in view thereof viz.the petitioner having stated that he accepts the judgments of the lower Courts the time to vacate the suit premises is extended up to and including 30th June,2009 subject to the petitioner filing the usual undertaking. 4] The undertaking shall initially be furnished by the constituted attorney of the petitioner on or before 31st January,2009 and the same shall be substituted by the petitioner and all the members of the family presently staying in the suit premises on or before 20th February,2009.This is in view of the statement that the petitioner is out of India at present.