IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2008 REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2008 REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2008 Shri Bhalchandra Sadashiv Kavadi ..Petitioner V/s. Shri Dinkar Shridhar Tamhankar ..Respondent Shri S.R. Borulkar for Petitioner Shri G.S. Godbole for Respondent CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 5TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : . Both the Courts below have held in favour of the Respondent-landlord in the ground of bona-fide requirement. Considering the facts in this case, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. The entire evidence has been considered and appreciated satisfactorily. 2. The landlord as well as the tenants are senior citizens, nodoubt. The landlord however, also has a son, a daughter-in-law and two grand children. Further, he has a daughter who lives abroad, who visits him. The landlord who is an Ex-military Engineering Services Officer acts an an arbitrator. He requires premises for consultation. The premises at the back are used by his daughter-in-law for powder coating. I am unable to state that the requirment is not bona-fide. 3. The petitioner-tenant’s daughter lives in the same city, in a flat in an exclusive society. Further, it is important to note that an offer has been made to accommodate the Petitioners in a flat in the same locality, one kilometer from the suit premises. Faced with this, it was contended that the flat is between the 2nd and the 3rd floor and there is no lift. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioners are unable to access the flat. It was stated that the Petitioner’s wife is suffering from arthritis. There is no evidence on record of this matter. 4. It is contended that the Courts below ought to have considered passing a partial decree by directing handing over only a portion of the tenanted premises. Firstly, this aspect was not raised before either of the Courts below. It was raised before me for the first time. Further, in the facts of this case, I am not inclined to entertain the application for passing a partial decree. I am satisfied regarding the requirement of the Respondent for the entire tenanted premises, admeasuring about 600 Sq.Ft.. Secondly, adequate alternative accommodation has been provided for even by the Lower Appellate Court. 5. In these circumstances, the Petitioner’s Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate the premises is extended upto 31st December, 2008, subject to the Petitioner’s filing the usual affidavit within 8 weeks including an undertaking to vacate and handover quite, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises, subject to any order of the Apex Court.