: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.745 OF 2009 Badshah Mohammed Nadaf .. Applicant V/s. Indubai Anantrao Mankar .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the Applicant. Mr. D.M. Gupte for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed by the applicant-tenant contending that the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below are erroneous. The Suit has been decreed on the ground of bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlady for the suit premises. It was the case of the respondent-landlady that she required the suit premises since her son had retired from military service and he required the premises in order to start his business to augment the income of the plaintiff’s family. The respondent, whose age is 80 years, has pleaded that the applicant-tenant had alternate premises being : 2 : Shop No.417 at Shivaji Nagar, Pune and, therefore, if the decree was not passed in her favour, greater hardship would be caused to her. 2. Mr. Patwardhan appearing for the applicant- tenant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nanalal Goverdhanlal and Co. and Ors. vs. Samratbai Lilachand Shah, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 867 in support of his submissions. He further submits that the respondent-landlady had not proved her own requirement for the premises. He submits that it was necessary for the respondent- landlady to establish that she was totally dependant on her son and that she was, therefore, seeking the premises. He also argues that the respondent-landlady has not stepped into the witness box and that it was her son who has deposed on her behalf and, therefore, the need of the plaintiff for the premises has not been established. 3. I have considered these submissions of the learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant. But, in : 3 : my opinion, they are of no avail to the applicant. Both the Courts below have, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the respondent- landlady had proved that she required the suit premises bonafide and that greater hardship would be caused to her if the decree was not passed in her favour. Apart from this, both the Courts below have considered the fact that the applicant-tenant has alternate premises being Shop No.417 at Shivaji Nagar, Pune, which he has admitted in his evidence. The learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant submits that the shop premises were in the name of his brother and, therefore, the applicant-tenant had no right over the premises. He produced, in this Court for the first time, the Shop and Establishment License indicating that the said premises are in the name of his brother. However, this license has been renewed only after the Appellate Court’s judgment. In my opinion, this document is of no avail to the applicant-tenant since he has admitted in his testimony that he is conducting his business in those premises. : 4 : 4. There is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 5. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. The decree shall not be executed on the application made by the learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant for a period of eight weeks from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant and the adults in his family to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......