1 cra138.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2011 Shaikh Abdul Nasar Abdul Latif, Age: 52 years, Occ: Rickshaw Driver, R/o. Plot No. 10, Mukundnagar, Fakirwada, Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Shaikh Nanhu Shaikh Husain, Age: 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mukundnagar, Fakirwada, Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for applicant. Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Application is 2 cra138.11 directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-03-2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2005. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicant submitted that, in absence of any evidence placed on record, both the Courts below relied upon the bare words of the plaintiff and recorded the findings that the respondent- tenant is a defaulter. In fact, nothing was brought on record to suggest that, particular amount of rent was fixed per month. It is further submitted that, the second ground on which the decree is passed that the landlord is in a bonafide need/requirement of the suit premises is concerned, at the time of recording of evidence, it was brought to the notice of the lower appellate Court by way of filing application that, the son of the landlord is staying at Kolhapur and his one daughter is already married, therefore, it was incumbent upon the lower appellate Court to 3 cra138.11 consider the application filed by the revision applicant-tenant. The lower appellate Court has not considered whether bonafide requirement is in existence or not. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff himself has admitted in the cross examination that, the first daughter is already married. It is further submitted that, another application was filed by the applicant-tenant bringing to the notice of the lower appellate Court that, the alleged accommodation which is acquired by the applicant-tenant is already sold prior to year 2000. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for revision applicant, on all three counts, both the Courts have recorded perverse findings. The lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration the applications filed by the revision applicant-tenant that, bonafide requirement of the landlord is not in existence. Secondly, accommodations which are acquired by the original respondent - revision applicant herein, are already sold, therefore, according to learned Counsel for the revision 4 cra138.11 applicant, this Civil Revision Application is required to be entertained. He further submits that, the Record and Proceedings may be called. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff-landlord would submit that, on all three counts i.e. default, bonafide requirement and alternate accommodation acquired by the tenant, concurrent findings are recorded by both the Courts below and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and no any irregularity is committed by both the Courts below. Therefore, in revisional jurisdiction, this Court may not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It is further submitted that, the rent due towards the tenant was not paid within 30 days from receiving the notice. No application was filed for fixing standard rent. Even as per amended provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the revision applicant has not deposited 5 cra138.11 the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing of the suit. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the respondent herein, there is no any ground on which this Court can interfere/upset the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the reasons recorded by both the Courts below about the bonafide requirement of the landlord and alternate accommodation acquired by the revision applicant-tenant. Therefore, Counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that, this Civil Revision Application may be rejected. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions of both the parties. It is not in dispute that on all three counts i.e. default, bonafide requirement, and alternate accommodation acquired by the tenant, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Even if the argument of the Counsel of the revision applicant is accepted that, there was rent of Rs.100/- per month, in that case also, the 6 cra138.11 said amount is not deposited in the Court, according to Counsel for the respondent-original plaintiff. 6. There is dispute about such payment of rent by the parties. However, the fact remains that in Para-15 the lower appellate Court has recorded the findings that, though it is contended by D.W.1 Shaikh Abdul Nazar Abdul Latif at Exhibit-60 on oath that, he obtained the suit premises on rent in December 1989 and the rent was of Rs.100/- per month and he has paid Rs.5000/- towards the deposit at that time. However, he admitted that, he has no evidence to show that the rent was of Rs.100/- per month. He has also admitted that he did not keep the accounts of the rent paid to the plaintiff from time to time. He further admitted that, he did not deposit the arrears of rent immediately after appearance in the Court. Therefore, in view of this finding recorded by the lower appellate Court, it is not possible for this Court to entertain this Civil 7 cra138.11 Revision Application. 7. Another point of "bonafide requirement of the landlord" is concerned, the lower appellate Court has considered the said point. In Para-18 of the impugned judgment, the lower appellate Court has recorded the findings that, there are 3 daughters and a son to the plaintiff out of which one daughter is married. His son is aged about 19 years, whereas the daughters are aged about 18 and 14 years respectively and he has stated that the premises in his possession are in adequate. Therefore, on that count also, the lower appellate Court held that, the landlord needs the said premises for his bonafide requirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that, what is the bonafide requirement of the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant. Therefore, in my opinion, both the Courts below after appreciation of the evidence reached to the definite conclusion that, the landlord needs suit premises for his personal use. That apart, the evidence also placed on 8 cra138.11 record by the plaintiff that, the tenant has acquired alternate accommodation. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicant strenuously contended that, the application was filed before the lower appellate Court stating therein that the said premises are sold by the tenant even prior to 2000 is concerned, the said aspect is not considered by the lower appellate Court, in this Civil Revision Application I do not wish to make any comments on the said aspect. There are concurrent findings of fact. No interference is called for. Civil Revision Application stands rejected. . Learned Counsel for the revision applicant submits that, the applicant is staying with his family in the suit premises and therefore, this Court may grant three months time for vacating the suit premises. However, the said prayer is vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that already two months time was granted by the District Court for 9 cra138.11 vacating the suit premises. In that view of the matter, I do not feel it appropriate to grant prayer of the applicant. Said prayer stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11