1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2008 Shri Pralhad Ramchandra Nikumbh ....Petitioner Versus Shri Vijay Pundlik Habde ....Respondent Mr. M. M. Sathaye, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 30th JUNE, 2009. P.C. : Heard Mr. Sathaye and Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. This is tenant’s revision challenging eviction decree under the Bombay Rent Act. Both the Courts below concurrently recorded finding that the Respondent-Landlord’s requirement is bonafide and reasonable. The finding of the facts is also recorded that the Respondent/Landlord will suffer more hardship in case of refusal of decree of eviction. 4. The above finding of the Lower Courts below is based on the fact that the Respondent/Landlord is residing with his aunt at Sinnar and he has no place to reside in Yeola, where the suit premises is situated and Landlord wanted to shift his residence. The Courts also found that the Respondent/Landlord is married and has three children and thus, his family is increased. After perusal of the 2 evidence of the Respondent/Landlord, I find no error in the finding of the Lower Courts below that the Respondent/Landlord requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide, especially in view of settled law that the Landlord is the judge of his own need and the Court cannot dictate the Landlord in such matters. 5. So far as comparative hardship is concerned, the Petitioner did not enter the witness box and therefore, adverse inference was drawn. Be that as it may, I have gone through the evidence of DW- 1, the son of the Appellant. The evidence discloses that there is one plot at Yeola belonging to Santosh-DW-1. It further discloses that another son of the Petitioner by name Sanjay has purchased two properties in Sali Galli at Yeola. Thus, the evidence discloses that the sons of the Petitioner are well placed and the Petitioner can reside alongwith his sons. The Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show any efforts to search for alternative accommodation. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the Respondent/Landlord proved reasonable and bonafide requirement and also that he will suffer more hardship incase of refusal of eviction decree. 6. Mr. Sathaye, learned Counsel, submitted that the Respondent had filed suit earlier. The same was decreed on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement. However, in an Appeal by the Petitioner/Appellant, decree on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement was set-aside and at present, Writ Petition at the instance of the Respondent/Landlord is pending for admission. On the basis of this fact, he submitted that the Respondent/Landlord got married on 24th June, 1991 during the pendency of the suit and therefore, fresh suit could not have been filed. I do not find merit in the submission. There is no dispute that the Respondent/Landlord has three issues and those have begotten much later after the decision of the earlier suit. Thus, in my view, there is no bar for the Respondent to file separate suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement in change of circumstances. 3 7. Mr. Sathaye, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, also submitted that the Petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, reside with his sons. This submission, in my view, is also devoid of any substance. The Respondent/Landlord is not claiming decree on the ground that the Petitioner has acquired alternative suitable accommodation but decree is claimed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. Both the Courts considered that the Petitioner can stay with his sons and this observation was made while considering the issue of comparative hardship. I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the Lower Courts below. 8. Both the Lower Courts, as stated above, concurrently recorded finding of facts that the Respondent proved bonafide and reasonable requirement and also further proved that he will suffer comparative hardship incase of refusal of decree. The finding of the facts cannot be said to be perverse and therefore, it cannot be interfered in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule, is accordingly discharged. 9. At this stage, Mr. Sathaye, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeks stay of the eviction decree for a period of eight weeks from today. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the Respondent has no objection. In view of the concession given by Mr. Kulkarni, the eviction decree shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today, subject to Petitioner filing undertaking in this Court, within a period of six weeks that he will not part with or create third party interest in the suit property. sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)