1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1/2008 D.K.Sandu Brothers (Chembur)Pvt.Ltd. Petitioners Vs. Chetan Prabhakar Patwardhan Respondent Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar,Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.Prakash Lad for Petitioner Mr.Anand Lavate i/b Mr.Ketan Chothani for respondent CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR,J. DATE : 3rd December,2008 P.C. 1] I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Both the Courts below have accepted the landlord's case and granted a decree for possession. 2] The decree is in respect of two premises each admeasuring 15'x10' on the ground floor and first floor of the building. The ground floor premises are used for commercial purposes of manufacturing and distributing Ayurvedic medicines. The first floor premises are used for residential purpose. 3] The findings essentially relate to questions of fact. There is nothing to indicate that the evidence has not been considered and/or properly appreciated. 2 4] The bonafide requirement of the respondent is established. His family comprises of his wife,two daughters and himself. At present he is in possession of only one room admeasuring 150 sq.ft.. Nothing more needs to be said regarding his requirement being bonafide. On the question of comparative hardship the Courts below have rightly relied upon the fact that the tenant/petitioner's business is prosperous enough to enable him to acquire alternate premises . The petitioner in fact has acquired premises even in New Bombay. On the other hand the respondent requires the said premises for his professional work as a chartered accountant . The petitioner has not produced the relevant documents to indicate that he is financially not capable of acquiring alternate accommodation. 5] Even assuming that the petitioner has a share in the adjoining ancestral property it would make no difference. There is nothing to indicate that the respondent is in possession of adequate premises therein. That the respondent may have been residing there prior to his marriage is of no consequence . Considering that there are now four members in his family his need for the suit premises is established. 6] Mr.Jahagirdar offers to vacate and hand over the first floor premises. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to retain the commercial premises. I am not inclined to accept the submission . 3 7] In the circumstances the C.R.A. is dismissed. 8] Time to vacate both the premises is extended till 31/5/2009 subject to the petitioner filing the usual undertaking.