spb/- 1 cra250-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2010 Shri Madhukar Narayan Joshi ... Applicant. V/s. Smt. Mangal Lalit Jain ... Respondent. --- Mr. Prashant Jadhav i/by Sandesh Patil for the Applicant. Mr. K.S. Deval for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 This civil revision application at the instance of the original tenant is directed against a judgment and order dated 12th January, 2010 passed by the District Court, Alibag, confirming the decree for eviction passed by the trial court. 2 The respondent filed a suit against the applicant on several grounds. The suit was decreed by the trial court on the grounds of non- user of the suit premises, bonafide requirement as also on the ground that the suit premises were required for the immediate purpose of demolition as ordered by the local authority. The appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court on two grounds, namely, non-user of the suit premises and that the premises were required for the purpose of immediate demolition in pursuance of a notice issued by the Municipal Authority. spb/- 2 cra250-10.sxw 3 So far as the ground of non-user is concerned, the very fact that the premises were dilapidated and required immediate demolition would show that it was a reasonable ground for non-user of the premises. Hence, in my opinion the decree for possession on the ground of non- user cannot be sustained. However, in my view, the decree for eviction on the ground mentioned under section 13(1)(hhh), namely, that the premises were required for the immediate purpose of demolition as ordered by the local authority cannot be assailed. On 02.05.1993 there was a major fire in the suit building in which major portion of the building was completely burnt by the fire and the remaining portion collapsed. Only three walls of the suit premises are standing. Two courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the suit premises are completely dilapidated. Two notices were issued by the Municipal Authorities, requiring the respondent to immediately demolish the entire structure as it had become dangerous. The original construction was more than 100 years old and it appears to be dilapidated and dangerous to be occupied. 4 In the light of this, no exception can be taken to the decree passed by the trial court under section 13(1)(hhh). Consequently, the revision application is rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]