: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2008 The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari . Sahakari Bank Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Zamndadas K. Mehtani & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.P.N. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr.M.M. Sathaye for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 10TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower Courts. 2. The lower Courts have come to a conclusion that the Respondent’s need is bona-fide and that comparative hardship faced by the Respondent is greater than the Petitioner. The trial Court after analysing the evidence and considering the details has observed that the Respondent had established that he requires the ground floor premises to set up his son in business by running a cloth shop on the ground floor where the suit premises are situated. The trial Court has also accepted the evidence that the business carried on by the Respondent’s son on the first floor had failed. Irrespective of that the fact remains : 2 : that the Respondent I would consider as established the Respondent’s need for the ground floor premises for running the said business. It cannot be denied that the ground floor would be the most appropriate place for carrying on the cloth business. 3. As observed in the judgment, the Petitioner had failed to establish its case that the Respondent’s son had an independent business and that the Petitioner’s witness could not furnish any evidence on the point. The first Appellate Court also accepted the Respondent’s case that his son was employed ; that his other business has failed and that he wanted to carry on a cloth business on the ground floor. 4. The criticism on behalf of the Petitioner of the first Appellate Court’s judgment is on the ground that it was very cryptic and had not considered the evidence in appeal. I am unable to agree. There really was no effective evidence produced on behalf of the Petitioner as observed by both the Courts. Crucial facts namely bona-fide requirement and comparative hardship have been dealt with sufficiently by the Court. 5. In the circumstances, no interference is : 3 : called for. Time to vacate however is extended upto 31.7.2008.