: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.319 OF 2009 Shri Prabhakar Shankarrao Gajre ... Applicant V/s. Shri Kaluram Haribhau Borate & ors. ... Respondents Mr.T.D. Deshmukh for Applicant Mr.V.S. Gokhale for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed contending that the orders passed by both the Courts below are erroneous. The trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of bonafide requirement. The plaintiff contended that the suit premises were required by him to start a flower vending business. 2. The decree passed by the Small Causes Court was challenged in the appellate Court by the applicant herein. The appellate Court was impressed by the contention of the applicant that the evidence on the issue of bonafide requirement was available on record. However, the applicant contended that several other premises have become available for the applicant to occupy and run his business during the pendency of the trial Court. The appellate Court therefore framed an issue and directed the parties to lead evidence before it. Accordingly, both the parties led evidence on this issue before the appellate Court. At no stage did the applicant raise any objection to leading evidence before the appellate Court. Nor did he contend : 2 : that he would be deprived of appeal if evidence was led before the appellate Court as is sought to be argued before this Court. The appellate Court on the basis of the evidence led before it as well as before the trial Court confirmed the order of the trial Court. The appellate Court found that no premises were available for the plaintiff to occupy to run his business. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiff’s premises which he had acquired during the pendency of the appeal were not suitable for the flower vending business. Both the Courts below have also observed that the flower vending business which the plaintiff was carrying on near a temple was on municipal land and the apprehension of being evicted from that place was valid and real. 3. The learned advocate has relied on the judgment in the case of Raghunath G. Panhale & Ors. v/s. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 to submit that the apprehension of the applicant is unreasonable. 4. In my view, the Courts below have not committed any error while considering the issues raised before them. Both the Courts have found that the defendants have several other premises in which they are conducting business. The apprehension of the Respondent-landlord of being removed from the municipal land is not unreal and therefore it cannot be called as unreasonable. 5. Civil revision application is dismissed. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant seeks a stay of the decree. Stay granted for three months on the usual undertaking being filed by the applicant and all adults in his family within two weeks from today.