: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.209 OF 2009 Suresh Mohanlal Shah .. Applicant V/s. Jayshree Manohar Gokhale .. Respondent Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Applicant. Mr. S.N. Chandrachud for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court contending that the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Court dated 5th April, 2007 which confirms the Judgment of the Small Causes Court is erroneous. The trial Court had decreed the Suit on the ground that the applicant had made permanent alterations in the suit premises. However, as regards bonafide requirement of the premises by the respondent-landlady, the trial Court had negatived that contention of the respondent-landlady. The Appellate Court has reversed the finding with regard to bonafide requirement as the respondent- : 2 : landlady had also filed Cross Objections. The Appellate Court has found that the respondent- landlady had proved that she requires the suit premises bonafide and that although certain rooms in the building were in her occupation, she was the best judge as to how those rooms were to be utilized by her. The Appellate Court has considered the fact that the husband of the plaintiff is unable to climb more than one floor because of his age. The Appellate Court has, in view of the evidence on record, also found that the respondent- landlady had proved that she bonafide required the suit premises. As regards the requirement of the applicant, the respondent-landlady had proved that the applicant owned several other premises at a short distance away from the suit premises. The Court has, therefore, observed that the comparative hardship caused to the respondent-landlady would be greater if the decree was not confirmed. 2. In my view, these findings cannot be faulted. They based on the evidence on record and on sound reasoning. : 3 : 3. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant seeks a stay of the operation of the decree. The decree is accordingly stayed for a period of six weeks from today on condition that the usual undertaking is furnished, by the applicant and the adult persons in the family, to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. 5. In view of the above, Civil Application No.209 of 2009 pending in the Civil Revision Application does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......