1 cra525-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 525 OF 2010 Smt. Malati J. Mahajan since deceased by her legal heir .. Applicant Jayant J. Mahajan V/s. Jagannath Shankar Chhatre & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. S. L. Singh for the Applicant. Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant was heard in the morning session. The present revision application has been preferred by Original defendant no.4 for challenging the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court which has been confirmed in Appeal by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. 2. The decree for possession has been passed on the ground of bonafide requirement of the first respondent who is the original 2 cra525-10 plaintiff. The suit premises is a room more particularly described in paragraph no. 2 of the plaint. The case made out by the first respondent is that he was occupying a room admeasuring 200 square feet and his family consisted of he himself, his wife and unmarried son. He has five married daughters. It is pointed out that the first respondent is a registered Medical Practitioner and his wife is employed. It is contended that the son of plaintiff is of marriageable age. It is contended that the first respondent is required to entertain several guests apart from his married daughters. It is alleged that the suit premises is not used by the tenant for a period of more than six months prior to the institution of the suit without any reasonable cause. 3. The second and forth defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial Court recorded a finding on the issue of bonafide need in favour of the plaintiff and even finding on the issue of comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff. An issue was also framed on non user which was held in favour of the first respondent. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court. 3 cra525-10 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was prevented by the trial Court from adducing evidence. He submitted that the advocate for applicant did not appear, and, therefore, evidence of the applicant was closed. He submitted that there were three rooms in possession of the first respondent which were kept closed. He submitted that the availability of the said three rooms is not taken into consideration by the Courts below. He submitted that the first respondent stated in his evidence that a room adjacent to the suit premises was vacant. He submitted that availability of the said room has not been taken into consideration. He has produced for the perusal of the Court a certified copy of the Roznama of the proceedings of the suit. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submission. The first respondent stepped into the witness box. He was cross examined by the advocate for the defendants. In the evidence of the first respondent, he pointed out that the area of the residential premises in his possession was 20 feet x 9 feet and he alongwith his wife and son were residing in the said room. In the cross examination he stated that the room adjacent to the suit premises 4 cra525-10 was in possession of his paternal aunt. In the cross examination, he disclosed the names of the three tenants, who were residing in the said building. 6. The finding of the Courts below is that the first respondent landlord was occupying only one room admeasuring about 200 square feet and his son was of marriageable age. It must be stated here that there is no specific case made out during the cross examination of the first respondent that three other premises were vacated by the tenants and were kept locked. Even assuming that the adjacent room is available, it is obvious that the requirement of first respondent accepted by both the Courts below will not be totally eclipsed. After the marriage of the son, there will be two married couples in the family of the first respondent and even assuming that one more room is available, there will be only two rooms available for the first respondent-landlord. It is not for the tenant to dictate in what manner the landlord should live. Even two rooms will not be sufficient to satisfy the need pleaded. 7. Thus, nothing was brought on record in the cross examination of the first respondent which will affect the merits of 5 cra525-10 the case on the ground of bonafide need. The perusal of the Roznama of the proceedings shows that evidence of the first respondent was closed on 27th August, 2008. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time on 12/09/2008, 23/08/2008, 3/10/2008, 14/10/2008, 15/10/2008, 21/10/2008 and judgment was ultimately pronounced on 25/10/2008. It must be stated here that the Roznama of the suit records that on 15/10/2008 and 20/10/2008, advocates for both the parties were present. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant was not granted sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. As far as comparative hardship is concerned, the Courts below, especially the Appellate Court has recorded a finding that none of the defendants occupied the suit premises since two years prior to 28th may, 2005. It was held that it is not the case of the defendants that they are unable to acquire any other accommodation. 8. As far as the ground bonafide need is concerned, it is not possible to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Court below in revisional jurisdiction. As the decree can be sustained on one ground, it is not necessary to go into other ground of eviction. 6 cra525-10 9. The Revision Application is rejected with no order as to costs. JUDGE