IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 572 of 2007 Babanrao Haribhau Karande & Ors. ….Applicants. Versus Digambar Narayan Tile & Ors. …Respondents ------ Mr. Mandar Limaye i/b Mr.Ashutosh Gole, for the Applicants. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, for Respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 18TH JUNE 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard, Mr.Limaye and Mr. Gokhale, learned counsel for the Applicants and Respondents respectively. 2. This is tenants’ revision under Bombay Rent Act against concurrent decree for eviction passed on the grounds of bonafide requirements and permanent construction. 3. As far as ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises is concerned, it was case of respondents that respondent no.1 Vijay was operated for Brain Tumour in the year 1989 and is taking treatment in K.E.M. Hospital and as suit premises is close to K.E.M. Hospital, same is needed for occupation. The contention of the applicants seems to be that said Mr Vijay is operated for Brain ..: 2 :.. Tumour long back and now he is not required to take treatment from K.E.M. Hospital. In this regard, reliance was placed as certificate issued by Dr. Apte. The lower Appellate Court, however, did not take the certificate into consideration for want of evidence. The lower Appellate Court, however, after appreciating the evidence on record held that Mr.Vijay is required post operational treatment at K.E.M. hospital. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances, the lower Appellate Court recorded findings that respondents required the premises bonafide and reasonably. It is settled principle, that the landlord is best judge of his need and Court cannot dictate landlord in this regard and find no reason to interfer in the said finding of fact. 4. So far as issue of comparative hardship is concerned, the lower Court held that the applicant owns premises at Chakan which is hardly 23 kms. away from the suit premises. Since the applicants owned alternate suitable accommodation, I do not find any error in the finding of lower court that the respondents would suffer comparative hardship if eviction decree is refused. 5. The eviction decree is also passed on the ground of permanent constructions. It is contention of the respondents that the Applicants have have carried out addition and alteraton in the suit premises of the permanent nature and that too without written permission of the landlord. According to respondents, the applicants have erected attic and also cut two wooden beams which were suppoting the wall of the premises and the said wooden beams are used for preparing stair-case. The Lower Appellate Court after considering the report of ..: 3 :.. the Court Commissioner in this regard, held that the applicants raised permanent construction in the nature of attic that too by causing damage to the suit premises. I do not find any error in these findings of the Courts below. 6. Taking totality of circumstnces into consideration, I find that the Courts below have approached the matter from correct point. No error of jurisdiction is brought to my notice. The Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr. Limaye, learned counsel for the Applicants seeks protection for the period of eight weeks in order to approach the Apex court. Mr.Gokhale, learned counsel for the Respspondents has no objection. In view of this concession and in the interest of justice, the impugned decree shall not be exeucted for a period of eight weeks from today, subject to condition that the applicants shall not transfer or create any third party interest in the suit premises. JUDGE