: 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.373 OF 2008 Kapurchand Pukhraj Ranka ..Applicant. Vs. Vijay Mohan Bondge & Anr. ..Respondents. Ms.Bhandari i/b.Ms.Pranjali Bhandari for the Applicant. Mr.Siddhartha R. Ronghe for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008 DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008 DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The judgments of the lower Court do not warrant any interference. Both the Courts below have decreed the Respondent’s suit and have directed the Appellant/tenant to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the Respondents. 2. On the question of bona-fide requirement, both the Courts have upheld the Respondents/landlords contention. The judgments cannot be faulted at all. The case of bona-fide requirement is more than adequately established. For instance, the evidence clearly indicates that the Respondents do not have any alternative or additional premises available to them and that they are greatly in need of the : 2 : additional premises which admeasure an aggregate area of about 400 sq. ft. 3. The Respondents family consists of several members. Respondent No.1 is in fact forced to reside with his parents. Even though Respondent No.1 has fairly and honestly stated that the premises are sufficient, it is important to note that he has two daughters and for their educational and other facilities it is desirable to have additional premises so that the Respondents can live with their family. Even from the point of view of space, the bona-fide requirement is established. 4. On the question of comparable hardship, the Applicant’s say cannot be accepted. The Applicant’s son Respondent No.2 herein is a joint tenant alongwith the Applicant. Respondent No.2 is a builder and a developer. He admitted in evidence that the scheme of development which included 20 flats, was undertaken. Even assuming their allegation that they have not retained any flats, it was always possible for them to do so. There is therefore no question of not establishing the comparable hardship in favour of the Respondents. : 3 : 5. It was further contented that Respondent No.1 had not established his title. It is pertinent to note that in the plaint as well as in the examination-in-chief the Applicant stated that he had inherited the said premises from his aunt one Smt.Rukmanibai Marutirao Gujar, who expired on 21.11.1989. He further expressly stated that she had executed a Will dated 3.9.1981 in his favour pursuant to which he became the owner of the suit property. It was however contended that Clause 3 of the Will does not vest the property in Respondent No.1. I am unable to agree. Clause 3 of the Will as translated by the Applicant, reads as under :- "3] According to this Will my sister Smt. Saraswati Sadashiv Bondge’s son Shri. Mohan Sadashiv Bondge, Age: Nearly 47 Years, R/at - 1210, Shimpi Ali, Pune 411 001 shall take all the income and enjoy the household property mentioned in clause 1, of this Will till his life-time and after him his son Kum. Vijay Mohan Bondge, now nearly 19 years old, will be the sole owner of household property mentioned in clause 1 and thus accordingly by this will I am giving him the said property mentioned in clause 1. In case during my lifetime, Kum. Vijay Mohan Bondge expires, or he dies before his father then above mentioned house hold property in clause 1 of this Will be given to legal heirs of Shri Vijay Mohan Bondge and these legal heirs should equally distribute the property within themselves." : 4 : The clause quite clearly indicates that the father of Respondent No.1 has only a limited interest in the property and that the title thereof vests in Respondent No.1. It is important to note that the father of Respondent No.1 has not disputed the same. As recorded by both the Courts below, the Applicant has proceeded throughout on the basis that Respondent No.1 is the owner. This included the making of entries in the revenue records. 6. Faced with this, it was contended that the Will was never issued to the Defendant/Applicant. The Courts below dealt with this contention and in fact submissions were made on the basis of the Will even before the Courts below. 7. Lastly, even assuming that the Will could not have been read in evidence, it is extremely important to note that the categorical assertion in the examination-in-chief of Respondent No.1 to the effect that he has become the owner of the suit property pursuant to the said Will, was not objected to on any ground. In the circumstances, I see no reason to entertain a technical plea taken at this stage. : 5 : 8. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate is extended upto 30th September, 2008 subject to the Applicant filing the usual undertaking within four weeks from today in this Court including that in the event of the Applicant not succeeding before the Supreme Court, he will comply with the decree including by handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises. **