: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2010 Vidyanand Ramakant Tiwari .. Applicant V/s. Valerian Antoni D’Silva .. Respondent Mr. N.B. Shah i/b. Mr. Piyush Shah for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 13 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been preferred against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the applicant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The Courts below have held that the applicant has acquired suitable alternate accommodation and, therefore, he was not entitled to continue in the suit premises. The applicant had submitted before the Courts below and indeed in this Court as well that the alternate accommodation was in the name of his son and that it was required to house his son. It is also contended that being a : 2 : school teacher he required suit premises which were close to his place of work. 2. Both the Courts below have found that land was acquired by the applicant and he has constructed residential premises on that property in 1985. The contention of the defendant that the alternate accommodation belonged to his son has rightly been disbelieved by the Courts. The defendant’s son admittedly was employed for the first time in 1988. Therefore, the contention of this property being purchased by his son cannot be accepted. Apart from this, the contention that the alternate premises are required to house his son and, therefore, the tenant was entitled to continue in the suit premises, cannot be accepted. 3. Once there is a finding that the tenant has acquired suitable alternate premises, it would mean that the tenant is liable to be evicted. 4. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. .......