1 39cra622 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2011 Eric Joaquim Fernandes ...Applicant vs. Trilok Singh Gandhi ...Respondent Ms Mandakini D.S.Sinh for the applicant Mr.A.A.N.Nashikwala for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks time on the ground that the applicant has filed a civil application seeking a direction for carrying out repairs. However, the revision application need not be adjourned as the said application can be considered on merits provided the revision application is admitted for final hearing. 2 The respondent is the landlord and the applicant is the tenant. The suit premises is a residential room more particularly described in the plaint. A suit was filed on 4th March 1999 by the respondent for eviction of the applicant. The suit was filed on the ground of acquisition of suitable residence, carrying out additions and alterations and non user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was contested by the applicant by filing a written statement. In the 2 39cra622 suit, it was contended that the applicant had informed the respondent by a letter dated 10th March 1998 that he was going abroad for gainful employment in a gulf country and as soon as his contract of service was over, he would return to India and start residing in the suit premises. It was contended that he was regularly paying the rent. Both the Courts below have passed a decree on the ground of non user for a period of six months and more prior to the institution of the suit. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by Advocate s letter dated 10 th March 1998, the applicant had informed the respondent that the applicant was temporarily going abroad for the purposes of employment and after the employment was over, he desired to stay in the suit premises. The submission is that even assuming that non user was proved, it was for sufficient cause in as much as the applicant could not stay in the suit premises due to his employment abroad. 4 I have considered the submissions. There is no dispute that for a period of six months prior to the date of institution of the suit, the applicant was not using the suit premises. The finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is that according to the case of the applicant, initially, the contract of employment was of two years. However, the contract was extended from time to time. The finding of the Appellate Court is that the applicant is residing in a gulf country along with his wife and children and that his children are taking 3 39cra622 education in the same country. The Appellate Court has recorded that for a period of 20 years, the applicant is in employment in a gulf country. 5 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that whenever the applicant comes to India he is using the suit premises by staying there. The fact which is established on evidence is that right from the year 1998 till today the applicant is gainfully employed abroad and therefore, intermittent or casual user by the applicant during his short visits to India will not save the applicant from decree on the ground of non user. 6 Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE