1 Rev.Pet.13/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.13 of 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.127 of 2011 Shri Narendra Raghunath Rashinkar ... Petitioner versus Vijay Nivrutti Kadari and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for the petitioner Mr.S.M.Railkar for respondent nos.1A, 1Band 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 14th December 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner (original petitioner) and learned counsel for respondent nos.1A, 1B and 2. 2. The petitioner is the tenant. A decree for possession was passed by the trial court on the ground of bonafide requirement and was confirmed by the District Court. Civil Revision Application No. 127 of 2011 was dismissed by this court by its judgment and order dated 24 February 2011. A review of that judgment and order dated 24 February 2011 is sought by this review petition. 2 Rev.Pet.13/11 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have acquired a flat at Thergaon and therefore, the need of the respondents is satisfied. This fact of acquisition of the flat by the respondents at Thergaon was not known to the petitioner when the revision application was filed and therefore the review. The petitioner has produced on record a photo stat copy of the electricity bill relating to the flat at Thergaon. It may be noted that the suit premises are situated in Pune Cantonment. The flat alleged to be acquired by the respondents is situate at Thergaon which is a different town and not even in the vicinity of Pune Cantonment. The acquisition of said flat at a far away place is not relevant and cannot be a ground for review. There is no merit in the review petition which is hereby rejected. 4. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, time for vacating the suit premises is extended upto 1 January 2012 subject to the review petitioner filing an undertaking in this court in usual form on or before 19 December 2011. (D.G.KARNIK, J)