1 W.P.No.914.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 914 OF 2010 Shri Dnyanoba Bhiku Ghorpade ... Applicant v/s Sudhakar Govind Saswadkar & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the applicant. Mr.P.S.Dani for respondent No.1(i). CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 29TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court against the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune, in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 2008 and by the District Court in Civil Appeal No.222 of 2009. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the landlord, who is now represented by his heirs, had proved the bonafide requirement for the premises. Although the landlord has expired during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court, the requirement of the daughter-in-law has been proved and accepted by the 2 W.P.No.914.10 Court. The daughter-in-law of the landlord, Amruta who is Chartered Accountant, wants to use the suit premises for her professional practice. In these circumstances, both the Courts have accepted the version of the landlord and have decreed the suit. 2. Mr.Warunjikar appearing for the petitioner submits that the space available to the landlord i.e. his heirs today is more than 1000 sq. ft. where only two women are staying. He submits that the petitioner is running a milk business and is in dire need of the suit premises and, therefore, he should not be evicted from the premises. He further has pointed out that there is space available for the landlord to construct a room or in fact any other room in the premises can be occupied by Amruta. He also points out that no action has been taken against the other tenants for evicting him. 3. In my opinion, all these submissions are of no avail to the applicant. It is concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. In my view, the orders passed by both the Courts below are not perverse requiring interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 4. In these circumstances, the civil revision application is dismissed. 3 W.P.No.914.10 5. However, the decree will not be executed for a period of six months from today in the event the applicant submits an undertaking to this Court by 22.11.2010 in the usual terms to vacate the premises at the end of six months. ..... 4 W.P.No.914.10