: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.602 OF 2009 Anant Raghunath Chavan ... Applicant V/s. Alex Simon D’souza & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.M. Haridas for Applicant Mr.R.D. Vora for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 21, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application challenges the order passed by the trial court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court by which the bonafide requirement of the landlords for the suit premises has been accepted. The main contention of the learned advocate for the applicant is that the respondents have not disclosed that they had filed other suits pursuant to which one suit has been decreed and they have obtained possession of those premises. It is contended that the Court ought to have considered the fact that since additional accommodation was available with the landlords due to the other suit being decreed, there was no need to pass a decree evicting the applicant in the present suit. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ravindra Narayan Shah vs. Ahilyabai w/do. Vishwanath Bhutkar & anr., 1985 Bom. R.C. 198 in support of this contenton. : 2 : 2. The learned advocate for the respondents submits that by placing reliance on an affidavit filed in reply to the civil revision application that the need of the landlords has not been satisfied even after the decree has been passed in the other suit. He also points out that the landlords have not delivered those premises to anybody else and, therefore, the present suit has been rightly decree by the Courts below. 3. In para 26 of the appellate Court’s judgment, the need of the landlord has been considered. The appellate Court has also considered the fact that the family of the landlord is large and that the premises available for them are 7’ X 9’ and therefore, has decreed the suit. 4. In my view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Narayan Shah vs. Ahilyabai w/do. Vishwanath Bhutkar & anr. (supra) does not support the case of the applicant since in that case, after obtaining a decree in respect of one room the landlord had let the premises again. Therefore, his need was not considered to be bonafide. In the case of Jainubee w/o. Abdul Rehman & Ors. v/s. Rupchand Jivaraj Kankaria & Ors., 1996 Bom RC 167, this Court has considered that even while several suits are filed by the landlord on the same ground of bonafide requirement they can be decreed. 5. Both the Courts below in the present case have considered that the hardship that would be caused to the landlords is greater than that which would be faced by the tenant if the decree in their favour were not to be passed. : 3 : 6. Civil revision application is rejected. 7. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of 12 weeks subject to the applicant and all adults in his family furnishing the usual undertaking to this Court within two weeks from today.