1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2010 Kum. Dhandevi Tribhuvandas Raja .... Applicant Mumbai. Vs. Mr. Kishor Ramji Nagarecha & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P.S. Dani i/by M/s Shamim & Co. for respondents no. 1A to 1D, 2 to 4, 6 and 7. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 5th August, 2010 P.C. 1. By this revision application, the applicant-original defendant seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 11th January 2010 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant to challenge the judgment and eviction decree dated 26th June 2007. The Trial Court by its judgment accepted the claim of the respondents of their reasonable bonafide need of the suit premises and passed the eviction decree. As regards the factual contentions of the parties, on the need of the premises as also the comparative hardship, the courts below have given concurrent findings in favour of the respondents and rejected the claim made by the applicant. 2 2. The premises in dispute is a flat admeasuring about 400 sq. ft. comprising of a living room, bed room, kitchen, two bath rooms, W.C. and open verandah on the ground floor of a three storied building known as Nagarecha Niwas , situate at Dadabhai Road, Vile Parle “ ” (West), Mumbai. The building Nagarecha Niwas consists of ground plus 3 upper floors. The carpet area of each floor is about 1080 sq. ft. The entire second floor is in possession of another tenant. The family of respondents consisting of in all 19 members, all adults, have been occupying the first floor, the third floor, one room admeasuring 10 x10 ’ ’ on the terrace of the building and a portion admeasuring 180 sq.ft on the ground floor. The tenancy in respect of the suit premises was created, some time in the year 1958 in favour of one Pushpa Raja, the sister of the applicant. Pushpa used to reside alone in the suit premises. She died on 12th October 1995. On her death, the respondents had put a lock on the premises as Pushpa had been staying alone. The applicant who had been visiting Pushpa intermittently since the year 1980 arrived in Mumbai about two weeks after the death of Pushpa. On her arrival, the applicant who is Pakistani citizen filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes being R.A.D. Suit No.136 of 1995 for a declaration that she is the tenant in respect of the premises. She also filed interim application for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the demised premises, that application was allowed and the 3 Additional Registrar of Small Causes Court was appointed as Receiver of the premises. Since then, till date the premises have been in possession of the Receiver. 3. The family of the respondents consists of four couples, two widows, two spinsters, seven children. Additionally the married daughters of the family frequently visit the respondents. It has been the case of the respondents that respondents nos. 3 and 4 are heart patients who have been advised against climbing of stairs. Therefore they are in need of the premises on the ground floor. The above facts which are not seriously disputed and which have even otherwise been established by the evidence of the respondents, clearly make out the reasonable and bonafide need of the respondents for the demised premises. 4. On the question of comparative hardship also, it is seen that the applicant has been residing in Gracil Apartments. According to the applicant, it is only a temporary accommodation made available by the builder in lieu of dispensary premises owned by her at Irla Shopping Centre. The applicant however did not produce any documents concerning the flat at Gracil Apartments. In any case in the last 15 years, after getting Receiver of demised premises appointed, the applicant has not even made an application for occupying the premises as an agent of Court Receiver. This conduct speaks volumes about the need of the applicant. Taking into consideration the above 4 fact, the trial court as well as, the appellate court arrived at the findings in favour of the respondents. In addition the appellate court noted that the applicant on receipt of notice of eviction made no efforts to find out an alternate accommodation. In these circumstances, in my opinion, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment and order. The courts below have taken a reasonable and possible view which cannot be reappreciated by this court in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 5. On the application of Mr. Govilkar, the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the Court Receiver shall handover possession of the demised premises to the respondents on expiry of eight weeks from today. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)