: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.471 OF 2009 Lallubhai Shobharam Shah .. Applicant V/s. Samarth Mandal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for the Applicant. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. S.N. Chandrachud for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 9th June, 2009 passed by the District Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.758 of 2006 arising from the decree passed on 21st August, 2006, in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2003 passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune. The landlords have filed the Suit on two grounds namely under Section 16(1) (g) and under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The trial Court has decreed the Suit on both these grounds. However, the Appellate Court of the Small Causes Court has held that the decree in respect of non user, as contemplated : 2 : under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, was required to be set aside. The Appellate Court has confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the suit premises were required by the landlords bonafide and, therefore, has decreed the Suit under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 2. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that although the landlords have sought a decree under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the pleadings in the plaint indicate that the suit premises are in a dilapidated condition and, therefore they would have to be redeveloped. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that once it is redeveloped, under the D.C. Regulations the tenant would be entitled to equivalent premises in the new construction. 3. This submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant is untenable. In fact, he was unable to substantiate this submission. The decree has been passed under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra : 3 : Rent Control Act since both the Courts below have on the basis of the evidence on record have found that the landlords’ case for bonafide requirement of the suit premises has been established. Once it is established that the landlord requires the suit premises, the landlord can then decide in what manner he can use them for himself. An Architect was examined before the Court who has admitted in his cross-examination that though the FSI available for the suit premises is 2.38, the plan submitted for reconstruction of the structure indicate that the FSI which will be used is only 2. In my opinion, therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant that under the D.C. Rules, the applicant would be entitled to an entry into the suit premises once it is redeveloped cannot be accepted. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant states that there is a material on record to indicate that the landlords which are a Trust will be using the suit premises as commercial premises and, therefore, the applicant would be entitled to be : 4 : inducted into the suit premises once they are redeveloped. This submission is also untenable as there is no material on record to indicate that the suit premises would not be used in consonance with the objects of the Trust. 5. on the application made by the learned Advocate for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today on the condition that the usual undertaking is furnished by the applicant to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. 6. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. .......