1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 612 OF 2009 Manjulaben Meghji Shah ... Applicant v/s Laxmibai Raghunath Panchal ... Respondent Mr.Shashi Jain with Mrs.Nayna Desai for the applicant. Mr.Durga Prasad for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed by the defendant in the Trial Court, contending that the decree passed by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court, is erroneous. 2. Both the Courts below have held on concurrent findings that the plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein requires the suit premises bonafide and reasonably. It has also been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiff had acquired suitable 2 alternate accommodation and, therefore, the decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the suit premises were being used for residential as well as commercial purposes since the applicant was residing in those premises along with her three daughters who were conducting a beauty parlour in those premises. Admittedly, the premises were let only for residential use. It is further contended that the eviction is not sought on the ground of change of user. The learned advocate points out that the premises were in use for a long period of time on a “composite basis” i.e. being used both for residential and commercial purposes. It is, therefore, submitted that merely because the applicant has acquired other premises for her residence, it would not necessarily mean that she has acquired suitable alternate accommodation. 4. With regard to bonafide requirement of the landlady, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that one of the sons of the landlady has already acquired premises in Dahisar, whereas she is residing with her elder son at Girgaon. It is submitted that since that son is over the age of 50 years, it is highly improbable that he would get 3 married. 5. In my opinion, the submissions made by the learned advocate are untenable. Firstly, the suit premises were let for residential use. The applicant’s are using them both for commercial as well as residential purposes. However, that would not change the fact that they were let for residential use. The applicant had acquired residential accommodation elsewhere and, therefore, in my opinion, the decree passed cannot be faulted. 6. As regards the issue regarding bonafide requirement of the landlady, in my opinion, she has established her case. She is at the moment residing in a tenement of 200 sq.ft. at Girgaon, as a tenant and therefore her need to occupy her own premises in Borivali cannot be doubted. Besides, merely because the son is 50 years of age, it would not necessarily mean that he would not get married as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant. 7. Civil revision application rejected. 8. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicants, the time to vacate the suit premises is 4 granted for three months from today on an undertaking being furnished on the usual terms by the applicant as well as her three daughters and any other persons residing in those premises, within two weeks from today. ..... 5