1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.243 OF 2010 Mrs.Anandibai V. Salvi & anr. ..Applicants V/s. Ramkishore Rambhajan Yadav ..Respondents (Since deceased) through Lrs. Mr.E.K.Sasidharan, Advocate, for the Applicants None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is filed against concurrent findings of the Courts below upholding the Plaintiffs' claim that the Plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide needed the suit premises. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants. The learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the Plaintiff had come with a case that there were two premises 2 available to them but in fact, in paragraph 14 of the Affidavit the Plaintiff No.3 had stated that premises at Chaukuta Chawl, Dand Pada, Khar Dhanda Khar (E), Mumbai was another premises available to the Plaintiffs. I have carefully considered this submission. It was stated in paragraph 7 of the Affidavit of evidence of the Plaintiff No.3 that rear part of one of the premises was used for ironing of clothes during business hours and hence, it was not suitable and sufficient place for residence. In view of this, there is no need to disturb the concurrent Orders of the Courts below, recorded after properly appreciating the evidence. Civil Revision Application is rejected. The learned Counsel for the Applicants seeks eight weeks time. The decree may not be put to execution for a period of eight weeks. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)