1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 125 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 125 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 125 OF 2008 Shri Harkoo Mahadeo Landge ... Petitioner Vs. Ravilal Rudka Gangaram Rajput & Ors. Respondents Mr.A.K.Abhyankar, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Nitin Mhatre, advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Vasanti Dighe, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 16th February,2008. DATE: 16th February,2008. DATE: 16th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the pleadings and the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 2. To state in brief, the original plaintiff - Rudka Gangaram Rajput, who was the landlord, had filed 2 Suit No.330/798 of 1991 seeking decree of eviction against the defendant from the suit premises which is the shop, on the ground that he reasonably and bonafide required the suit premises for his own business. Pending the suit, he also made an amendment and contended that his grandson, Haridas son of Ravilal who was aged 38 years was unemployed and had no source of income. The plaintiff wanted the suit premises for his business to settle his grandson Haridas. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his son Ravilal filed affidavit in evidence. In that affidavit, he stated that he required the premises for opening business for his son Haridas as well as his second son, Goverdhan, both of whom were jobless. In view of the evidence, the learned trial Court passed the decree for eviction against the tenant. The tenant-defendant preferred Appeal No.716 of 2004 before the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The appellate Bench also, after analysing the evidence minutely, dismissed the Appeal. The defendant has filed the present Revision Application. 4. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the plaintiff required the premises 3 reasonably and bonafide for self-occupation so that the grandsons of the original plaintiff could commence some business because both of them were unemployed. 5. The learned Counsel for the defendant-revision applicant contended that during the pendency of the Appeal, Haridas had also died on 17.2.2007, while the appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on 16.11.2007. Admittedly, the fact of death of Haridas was also brought to the notice of the appellate Court. The appellate Court noted that as per the evidence, the premises were required to settle in business Goverdhan, another son of Ravilal and grandson of the original plaintiff. Taking into consideration the circumstances and the concurrent finding of the Courts below, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments. 6. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)