: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2007 Jayant B. Hemade (since deceased) . through his legal heirs - . Smt.Anandi J. Hemade & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Somvanshiya Sahastrarjun Samaj . Trust and others ....Respondents Mr.V.A. Thorat, Senior Counsel with Mr.Bipin Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Jaydeep Deo for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11 and 13. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Revision Application challenges the order of the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, decreeing the Respondents/landlords’ suit and directing the Petitioner/tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. 2. I see no reason to interfere with the : 2 : concurrent findings of fact. The Respondent/landlord is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Respondent works for the upliftment of the members and its community. The suit premises were rented to the Petitioner’s father.It was then open land admeasuring 60 ft. x 20 ft. The decree was sought by the Respondent/Landlord under Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act, which reads as under :- "that where the premises are land, such land is reasonably and bona-fide required by the landlord for the erection of new building." 3. The suit was based on the Respondent’s intention to develop inter-alia the suit lands for various schemes undertaken by the Respondent such as Mahima Mandal, Yuvak Sanghatana, Yuvati Sanghatana, Bal Wadi, Gymnasium, Educational Institute, etc. and also for the purpose of a hostel for the students of their community. 4. The Courts below have accepted the Respondent’s case that the property was intended to be developed as contended by the Respondent. The evidence in this regard certainly establishes the : 3 : same. It appears that the plans submitted to the Municipal Corporation had not been sanctioned only in view of the Corporation having contended that they cannot be sanctioned until possession from all the tenants is obtained. 5. One of the factors considered by the lower Courts as establishing the Petitioner’s case regarding its bona-fide requirement is that it had in furtherance of its intention taken various steps including filing proceedings against other tenants on the same property. While the matter was before the lower Appellate Court in two matters, decrees has been passed. In the third matter, the proceedings were pending before this Court. However, by the time the matter reached hearing/admission before me, the Civil Revision Application even in that matter had been dismissed. 6. I am informed that the Special Leave Petition against the said order has also been dismissed. In the third matter being Civil Revision Application No.284 of 2007, the learned Judge considered various facts some of which are common naturally to all the cases including the present one. The learned Judge for instance accepted that the : 4 : Respondent Trust needed the premises for establishing a hostel for students and for its various activities. The learned Judge also held that even if the Respondent desired to raise funds by letting out the tenements in a building to be constructed to third parties, it would not warrant disturbing the finding of bona-fide requirement of the Respondent Trust. The learned Judge observed that while passing the decree under Section 13(1)(i), it is not necessary for the Court to decide the issue of comparative hardship. . In view of the above order and judgment also and in view of the judgment having been confirmed by the Apex Court, I am inclined to follow the course adopted by the learned Judge. 7. It is further important to note that the Respondent Trust has established its ability to raise finances for the said purpose. 8. In the circumstances, the following order is passed :- (i). The Revision Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. : 5 : (ii). Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Revision Application, it will be open for the Applicants to occupy the suit property subject to payment of compensation equivalent to monthly rent till the date on which they receive a written intimation from the Respondents regarding grant of building permission and commencement certificate and of their intention to commence the work of construction. The Applicants will have to vacate the suit property immediately on receipt of the intimation. (iii). As the Applicants desire to challenge this order, it is made clear that even if such intimation is received by the Applicants within a period of three months from today, for a period of three months from today, the decree for possession shall not be executed. (iv). The revision Applicants are restrained from creating any third party interests in respect of the suit property and from parting with : 6 : possession of the suit property. (v). It is clarified that the above order will not prevent the Pune Municipal Corporation from considering the plan and sanctioning the same if the same are otherwise in accordance with law merely only the ground of the above order.