:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2007 Gafarkhan Hamidkhan Pathan ...Applicant. v. Savitribai Shankarrao Igave ...Respondent. Mr.I.M.Khairdi , adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Nitin Muley h/for G.S.Godbole , advs. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th February, 2008. DATE: 28th February, 2008. DATE: 28th February, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The present applicant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The defendant is occupying the suit premises as tenant since 1992 for carrying on the business of cloth. Area of shop is approximately 15 X 25 ft. The plaintiff purchased the complete building in January, 2002. The suit premises is the ground floor of that building. Plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and possession on the ground that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for running his own business of utensils. The suit was contested by the defendant. However, after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the decree in favour of the landlord. The defendant/tenant :2: filed Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 2005. That appeal is also dismissed. There is concurrent finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide require the suit premises for carrying on his own business of utensils. After perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or any error in the findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the defendant/applicant contended that the suit premises could be partitioned and half of the shop may be given to the landlord and the defendant/tenant may be allowed to continue his business in remaining part of the shop. It appears that the Court Commissioner was appointed when the appeal was pending and it was found that dimensions of the suit shop are East-West 12 ft. 3 Inches and North South 22 ft. 7 Inches. The learned Appellate Court considered request for partition but did not find the proposal feasible. I have also heard both the parties in this respect. Taking into consideration the nature of the business of utensils, which the plaintiff wants to carry on in the suit premises, half portion of the shop, i.e., 12 ft. 3 inches X 11 ft. 3 inches would not be sufficient. Taking into consideration the nature of business, he will require whole of the suit premises. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the defendant/applicant that only a part of the suit premises may be given to the landlord. :3: 3. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the Revision Application. 4. Hence, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)