- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 545 OF 2007 Shri Baburao Kamble(Master) ... Applicant Vs. Sou. Kunda Anand Retharekar ... Respondent Mr. Girish S. Godbole, for applicant. Mr. Sanjay Bhosale, for respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent. This is tenant’s revision application under the Bombay Rent Act. Both the Courts below passed the decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement. It is case of the respondent/landlady that she along with her husband and children is staying at Bombay in the premises admeasuring 220 Sq. ft. The respondent’s husband at the time of filing the suit was of 56 years age and serving in Cooperative Department. She wants to settle at Sangli along with her family after retirement of her husband. The suit premises consist of two rooms. There are other two rooms, adjacent to the suit premises which are in possession of the respondent. - 2 - 2. Both the Courts below having considered the evidence of the parties, concluded that bona fide and reasonable requirement is established by the respondent. The issue of comparative hardship was also answered in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the admission of husband of the respondent in his cross-examination to the effect that his father was possessing other properties, apart from the suit premises. He also pointed out that findings of the Courts below on the issue of comparative hardship is erroneous, in as much as the applicant possess an open plot at Islampur, which is about 70 Kms. away from Sangli. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary, supported the impugned judgment and decree. 3. It is true that respondent’s husband admitted that his father was in possession of some property. However, it is a fact that on the date of suit, the suit property was the only property which was left by the deceased father-in-law of the respondent. I find nothing wrong if the respondent along with her husband want to settle at Sangli, after retirement of her husband. Landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the Court cannot dictate in this regard. In these facts the bona fide and reasonable requirements are correctly held to be proved by the landlord. So far as issue of comparative hardship is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court that the applicant is the owner of plot at Islampur and applicant’s son is residing at Islampur. The applicant - 3 - did not make any efforts to secure alternative accommodation. Applicant’s witness also admitted that various premises are available in Sangli city on rental basis. In these facts, in my view the respondent will suffer greater hardship in case decree of eviction is refused. The similar finding is recorded by the lower Courts. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, so as to enable me to interfere in this revision, in my jurisdiction under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. Revision is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]