spb/- 1 cra38-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2011 IN C.R.A.NO.38/2011 Shri Suresh Rakhmaji Katke ... Applicant. V/s. Shrimati Shantabai Mahadeo Katke ... Respondent. --- Mr. Ranjit R. Bhonsale for the Appellant. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Revision applicant (for short applicant). 2 The applicant challenges the decree for eviction passed against him by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court in appeal. 3 The respondent-landlord filed a suit against the applicant for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have concurrently held that the requirement of the respondent -landlord is reasonable and bonafide. Similarly finding on question of hardship has also been recorded against the applicant. 4 The learned counsel for the applicant took me through the spb/- 2 cra38-11.sxw evidence of the parties. In the examination-in-chief (filed on affidavit) the respondent has clearly stated that she was in possession of only two rooms and there were 7 family members in her family which consists of herself, her son, daughter in-law and four grand- sons. Considering the number of members in the family of the respondent and the premises available in her possession, it cannot be said that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below about her reasonable and bonafide requirement is in any way perverse. It is not only a possible finding of fact but an eminently probable finding of fact. 5 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent had obtained possession from three other tenants but instead of occupying their premises had let them out to three new tenants on a higher rent. Except for the bear words of the applicant no evidence was adduced by the appellant in that regard. The applicant did not examine any of the alleged new tenants or even old tenants nor did he issue any notice to the respondent to produce counter foils of the rent receipts. In the circumstances, the courts below committed no error in not believing the case of the applicant that the respondent had obtained possession from three tenants and let out the premises to new tenants at a higher rent. 6 There is no merit in the civil revision application. The same is dismissed. 7 In view of the dismissal of the civil revision application itself, the civil application no. 27 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]