1 CRA 125/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2011 Maganbhai Nanjibhai Savani & Anr. .. Applicants V/s Natwarlal K. Shah .. Respondent Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for the applicants. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 1ST MARCH 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This revision application is directed against an order passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, dismissing the suit of the applicants (landlords) for eviction of the respondent (tenant) and confirmed by the appellate Bench. 3. The applicants filed a suit for eviction against the respondent on the ground of non-user of the suit premises and acquisition of alternate premises by the respondent. In the evidence, the respondent has stated that he was a businessman and carried on business at Mumbai and Surat. He stayed in 2 CRA 125/2011 Mumbai for 2 days in a week for business and spent rest of the week in Surat. As regards the acquisition of residence at Surat, it appears that the premises in Mumbai were acquired later. The appellate Court has therefore correctly held that the acquisition of the premises at Surat earlier than the acquisition of the suit premises was not a ground for eviction. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the premises in Surat amounts to acquisition of “suitable residence” of the respondent as he is required to come and stay in Mumbai for couple of days in a week and spend rest of the week in Surat for business. 4. As regards non-user of the suit premises, the respondent produced electricity bills for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the suit. Though the consumption had gone down during the period of 6 months preceding the suit, the consumption was not nil indicating that the suit premises were used but perhaps less frequently. A reasonable explanation was offered by the respondent that his father was seriously ill and therefore he was required to stay more often in Surat. His father ultimately died just prior to the filing of the suit. The appellate Bench has accepted the explanation of the respondent for lesser consumption of electricity. The concurrent findings 3 CRA 125/2011 recorded by both the Courts below are possible findings of fact requiring no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)