- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) No. 24074 OF 2008 Abbas Sharafali T. Icecreamwala & Anr. ... Applicants Vs. Zarthoath Hormusji Mubarakai ... Respondents *** Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates, for applicants. Mr. R. C. Shah, for respondent. *** CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 10, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. By consent of parties present revision is taken for hearing. This is a tenants revision under Bombay Rent Act. There is no dispute that father of the present applicants were tenant in the suit premises. He expired in the year 1987. The respondent filed the suit in the year 1999 on the ground of non-user of the suit property for a period of six months immediately before filing of the suit. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the respondent landlord successfully proved that the applicants are not using the suit premises for a period more than six months, immediately before filing of the suit. - 2 - 2. The respondent specifically deposed that respondents are not using the suit premises since 1987. The evidence of respondent is corroborated by evidence of PW 2 Threety, who is residing in building, where the suit premises is situated. PW 2 specifically stated that the applicants are not using the suit premises since 1992-1993. 3. The applicants on their behalf examined applicant No. 2. Perusal of his deposition discloses that he is ignorant about the name of the landlord. He stated that he was not aware whether there was Gram Panchayat at Malyan. If deposition of applicant No.2 is considered in totality, it is clear that he has not turned to the suit premises since many years. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the suit premises was taken for rest on holidays and therefore, their presence in week days cannot be expected. This submission is also without any merit in view of the admission of the applicant No.2 in cross-examination that applicant’s father obtained the suit premises for residence of the entire family. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, I do not find any error which enables me to interfere in this revision in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Revision is therefore dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]