: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.380 OF 2009 Lata S. Ullal .. Applicant V/s. Francis S. Vital .. Respondent Dr. K.K. Khanna with Mr. C.K. Rajani for the Applicant. Mr. Girish Godbole with Mr. Darshan R. Mehta and Mr. Lalan Gupta i/b. M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application contending that both the Courts below have erred in decreeing the Suit against her. She contends that she is a tenant of the suit premises and is living with her niece, Shashikala, who is 80 years old and her widowed sister, Sulochana, who is 78 years old. The applicant herself is 81 years old. : 2 : 2. The Suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises as also certain other reliefs. The Suit has been decreed and an Appeal was preferred by both the applicant as well as the respondent. This was because the Suit had been dismissed on several other grounds which were raised by the respondent- plaintiff. The Cross Appeals had been decided and the decree on the ground of bonafide requirement and acquisition of alternate premises had also been confirmed. 3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that the applicant-defendant had placed material on record to indicate that the respondent-plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his sons, as alleged by him, since both his sons were settled in the United States of America. It is further submitted that the alternate accommodation acquired by the applicant-defendant had been acquired in 1974 when her husband bought the flat in Sudama Co-op. Housing Society in her name. She became a tenant in the present suit : 3 : premises in 1983 and, therefore, the contention that she had acquired suitable alternate accommodation is unsustainable. 4. In my view, since there are concurrent findings of facts that the respondent-plaintiff bonafide requires the suit premises, it would not be necessary for me to interfere with these findings. A possible view has been taken by both the Courts below that the suit premises are bonafide required by the respondent-plaintiff. There is material on record to indicate that one of his sons has returned to India and the other son, who is married, visits India off and on. The Courts below have also considered the fact that the premises in Sudama Co-op. Housing Society are in the name of the applicant and, therefore, she could shift to those premises. 5. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. However, considering the age of the applicant and those residing with her as well as their mental : 4 : health, the decree shall not be executed for a period of three years from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant and those residing with her in the suit premises to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. 7. In view of the above, Civil Application No.380 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......