1 213.10-cra IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2010 Mumbai Marathi Grantha Sangrahalaya and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Shri Sudhachandra Shankar Date. ... Respondent. Ravindra V. Sankpal for the petitioners. Ms.Vijaya Divekar i/b. Divekar & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 14th December 2011. P.C. : The first appellate court has granted a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of bonafide requirement. The original plaintiff has exhibited his bonafide retirement to occupy two room tenement in possession of the defendant for the plaintiff’s own residence and for the purpose of starting medical practice of his son. The plaintiff, at the relevant time, was occupying premises at Ghatkopar, Mumbai and after his retirement he intended to shift to Pune. There are four rooms in possession of the plaintiff which are insufficient for the need of the plaintiff and his family members. The first appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence on record, held that the bonafide requirement as exhibited by the plaintiff regarding his need for the premises for his residence as well as for starting medical 2 213.10-cra practice of his son is genuine. It is not open for the tenant to say as to which premises the landlord should occupy and it is the choice of the landlord to seek eviction of the premises, if he need those premises for his bonafide occupation. It is true that that the plaintiff has one premises at Ghatkopar and it was the desire expressed by the plaintiff to shift to Pune after his retirement. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has retired from service in the year 1993. However, the defendant cannot be permitted to say that the plaintiff is in possession of the premises at Ghatkopar, Mumbai and he should reside there or he should shift to Pune. Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the matter of Akhileshwar Kumar and others v. Mustaqim and others, AIR 2003 SC 532. It is observed there that: “Once it has been proved by a landlord that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by him for his own purpose and such satisfaction withstands the test of objective assessment by the Court of facts, then choosing the accommodation which would be reasonable to satisfy such requirement has to be left to the subjective choice of the needy. The Court cannot thrust upon its own choice on the needy. Of course, the choice has to be exercised reasonably and not whimsically.” 2. The reasons recorded by the first appellate Court are proper and are based on appreciation of evidence placed on record by the parties. While exercising revisional powers conferred on this Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, it would be inappropriate to probe into the questions of facts. The scope of exercise of revisional powers is very restrictive. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Patel 3 213.10-cra Valmik Himmatlal & others v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, (1998) 7 SCC 383. While referring to the provisions of Bombay Rent Act, the Apex Court has ruled that, “the mere fact that a different view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence cannot be a ground for the High Court to substitute its own findings while exercising revisional jurisdiction.” In the matter of Ram Dass v. Davinder, (2004) 3 SCC 784, it has been ruled by the Apex Court that, “the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction.” In the reported matter, the judgment recorded by the High Court by upsetting the concurrent findings of the authorities below on reappreciation of the evidence has been set aside by the Apex Court. 3. For the reasons set out above, I am of the view that the order passed by the first appellate Court directing eviction of the tenant does not call for any interference. The revision application is devoid of any substance. In the result, civil revision application is rejected. (R.M.BORDE, J.)