1 20cra286 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2011 Mahesh M. Savadia ...Applicant vs. Devkaben Visanji Mepani & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.G.S.Bhat for the applicant Mr.M.A.Choudhari for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2011 P.C.: 1 The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant were heard on the earlier date. The challenge in this civil revision application is to the decree for eviction passed against the applicant. 2 The suit premises subject matter of the dispute is block no.2 more particularly described in the plaint which is a residential premises. A suit was filed on the ground of non user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the suit and bona fide need. The Trial Court decreed the suit. An Appeal was preferred by the present applicant. Though the appeal was dismissed, the Appellate Court upheld only on the ground of non user and the ground of bona fide need was negatived. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the findings recorded by both the 2 20cra286 Courts below. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that reliance was placed only on electricity bills which do not show complete non user for a period of six months. He submitted that the correspondence was made by the applicant with the Electricity Authority regarding the defective meter. He submitted that apart from electricity bills, correspondence received by the applicant at the address of the suit premises was placed on record and the ration card showing the address of the suit premises was placed on record. He submitted that the acquisition of the flat in Manav Mandir Building was by the parents of the applicant. He submitted that there is no finding that the applicant has acquired another accommodation and therefore, the case of non user cannot be accepted. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. The Courts below have taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record. The suit was filed on 17 th August 1994 on the ground of non user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the suit. One of the allegations made in the plaint is that the applicant has shifted to flat Nos.402, 403 and 404 in Manav Mandir Building. Notice to quit dated 12 th March 1994 was served on the applicant at the address of the flat in Manav Mandir Building. Even the suit summons was served at the said address. It is pointed out that the letter dated 24 th March 1994 addressed by the respondent to the applicant was received in the new premises being flat no.403 in Manav Mandir Building. A finding has been recorded that a telephone 3 20cra286 connection which was available in the suit premises has been shifted to the flat no.403. The said flat no.403 stands in the name of wife of the applicant. The Appellate Court has noted that the electricity bills for the period from October to December 1993, May and June 1994, July 1994/August 1994, November and December 1994, November 1995, December 1995 were average bills sent on account of defective meter. The Appellate Court has also noted that even the bills for May and June 1999 were the average bills sent on account of defective meter. The finding is that from 22 nd October 1993 to June 1999 the meter is shown to be defective but no serious steps have been taken by the applicant to get the meter rectified. The Appellate Court has made a reference to Ration Card, L.I.C premiums receipts, driving licence and correspondence received by the applicant from Bank of Baroda, Oriental Insurance Company and Bombay Municipal Corporation. On the face of the evidence regarding service of quit notice and suit summons at the new address and the shifting of telephone connection to the new address, the Appellate Court noted that the concerned Authorities may not have been informed of the new address by the applicant and therefore, they continued their correspondence at the address of the old building. 4 Apart from this, the finding of fact is that the flat no.402 in Manav Mandir Building was acquired by the father of the applicant and the flat no.403 was acquired by the applicant s wife. 5 Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the 4 20cra286 concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below as regards non user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the suit. There is no merit in the revision application and the same is rejected. 6 On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today. JUDGE