: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.473 OF 2007 Parvati S. Harmalkar & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Sallauddin Y. Mujawar & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.C.G. Gavnekar for the Petitioners. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts. 2. The premises came to the share of Respondent No.1 under a deed of partition in 1987. Both the learned Courts rightly held that the partition deed has not been effectively challenged. 3. For instance on the ground of comparative hardship, both the Courts have held in favour of Respondent No.1 i.e. the landlord. The suit premises are sought to be used by Respondent No.1, who desires to settle down in this town after his retirement. He has also suffered a heart-attack and has undergone a by-pass surgery. On the other hand all the Appellants : 2 : except one have been residing in Mumbai. Further the Courts have come to the conclusion that there is nothing to suggest that the Appellants have in fact been using the premises continuously. There is nothing on record that warrants interference with this finding either. 4. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. However, time to vacate and hand over possession is extended upto 31st August, 2008 subject to the Appellants filing usual undertakings including that they will hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises upon expiry of the stay subject ofcourse to any orders by the Apex Court.