1 CRA 583/2010 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 583 OF 2010 Vishwas Gopinath Nalawade .. Applicant V/s 1. Arvind Jagannath Pise 2. Sharad Jagannath Pise .. Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Talkute for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the decree for eviction passed against the applicant (tenant) and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are brothers and they are owners of an ancestral house property bearing C.T.S. No. 81 in Guruwar Peth, Satara. They were in service of government/ semi-government organisation and on their retirement they filed 2 CRA 583/2010 a suit for eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that they wanted to settle at Satara in their ancestral house. The trial Court passed the decree on the ground of bonafide requirement as also on the ground of permanent construction made by the applicant. The appellate Court confirmed the decree on both the counts. 4. The respondent no.1 has stated on oath that he is presently residing at his son’s small flat at Pune. Post retirement he wants to settle down at Satara in the ancestral house and therefore wants the suit premises for his residence. He has also stated that his brother (respondent no.2) also wants to stay at Satara in the suit premises as he has also retired and there is no other premises for him to stay. The two Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact about reasonable and bonafide requirement of the respondents. The finding is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The finding of greater hardship has also been concurrently recorded in favour of the respondents by the two Courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents filed the suit under the Bombay Rent Act. He 3 CRA 583/2010 submitted that the Bombay Rent Act was repealed and the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was applicable when the suit was filed. Mere wrong mention of a provision or name of the Act would not alter the suit. Ground of bonafide requirement under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act and under section 16(1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act are identical. 6. There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the applicant for making alternative arrangement. Counsel for the respondents have no objection for grant of reasonable time. Accordingly it is directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of one year subject to the revision applicant filing an undertaking of himself and all his family members in this Court within 4 weeks in usual form. In the event the undertaking is not filed within 4 weeks, the respondents shall be entitled to execute the decree forthwith. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)