: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2008 Shri Kashinath L. Mondhave ..Applicant. Vs. Shri Iranna Malleshi Darphale & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.C.V.Lad for the Applicant. Mr.Sanjeev J. Rairkar i/b.N.C.Walimbe for Respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The impugned order warrants no interference especially in a Revision Application. The bona-fide requirement of the Respondents is clearly established. The Respondents have four rooms in their possession. There are about fifteen members in the family. Merely because some of them are the members of family of the daughter, makes no difference. 2. Further, the Courts below have also upon appreciation of the evidence come to the conclusion that from the year 1997 the Petitioner had shifted his residence to Kanva Apartment and has been : 2 : residing there with his children. As noted in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, the address in the Memo of Appeal was also given as Kanva Apartment but on realising the same, the Applicant had corrected the same. 3. What is important to note also is that the records of the MSEB showed that there was nil electricity supply for a very long period in the suit premises. The Applicant had not established that this was due to any error in the meter. 4. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 5. The time to vacate however is extended upto and inclusive of 31.1.2009 subject to the Applicant filing the usual undertaking on or before 30.11.2008. ***