: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.235 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Mukesh Vashi i/b M/s.M.P. Vashi and Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.Mahesh Dhari for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the lower Courts rejecting the case of the obstructionists. 2. The suit was filed by the Respondent - landlord inter-alia on the ground of bona-fide requirement. The obstructionist is the brother of the original Defendant who expired on 28.10.1993. The decree for eviction was : 2 : passed on 10.12.2002 on the ground of bona-fide requirement. The Petitioners obstructed the execution of the decree. 3. Both the Courts below have dealt with the evidence and case satisfactorily and in considerable detail. It is necessary only to mention a few aspects. 4. The original Defendant had expressly contended that the Defendant had taken the suit premises on tenancy basis in the year 1961. He did not state that the suit premises was taken for and on behalf of or for the benefit of the entire extended family including his brother - obstructionist. That the obstructionists may have been residing at some stage in the said premises is another matter. It is pertinent to note that the obstructionists were aware of the proceedings even prior to the year 1986. In his evidence he has stated that he was looking after the above suit in 1986 and that thereafter the original Defendant gave the power of attorney to his : 3 : brother-in-law. The obstructionists never denied the contention that the tenancy had been taken by the Defendant. In other words he never asserted any independent right himself. 5. Mr.Vashi’s reliance upon paragraph 5 (iv) of the written statement of the original Defendant does not carry the Petitioners’ case any further. The statement is not binding on the Respondent. Further all that he stated is that his family members were residing in the said premises continuously and that the same were in their occupation. There is not even a whisper of any right by way of tenancy or otherwise in favour of the obstructionists. 6. Moreover in the written statement, the original Defendant had further stated that the obstructionists had, on account of increase in the family, obtained alternate accommodation. Even this had not been denied by the obstructionists at the relevant time despite being aware of : 4 : the same. 7. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Time to vacate is extended upto 30.9.2008 subject to the Petitioners filing the usual undertaking within four weeks from today in this Court including that in the event of the Petitioners not succeeding before the Supreme Court, they will comply with the decree including by handing over possession of the premises.