1 CRA No.479/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.479 of 2010 Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil ... Applicant versus Smt.Sulochana Harishchandra Palkar ... Respondent ... Ms.Anamika A. Motale i/b Mr.S.V.Gavand for the applicant CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 12th January 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This revision application is filed by the landlord whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the trial court and the order of dismissal is confirmed by the District Court in appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant presses only two grounds viz. reasonable and bonafide requirement and acquisition of suitable alternative premises by the respondent tenant. Alternative premises were acquired by the son of the respondent in a different town. Respondent who is the widow has no right to stay in the premises allegedly acquired by her son and that too, in a different town. The 2 CRA No.479/10 premises of son in a different town cannot be regarded as acquisition of suitable residential premises by the respondent. 4. As regards the reasonable and bonafide requirement, the two courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has not proved that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant does not need the premises for use in the existing form but the applicant wants to demolish the existing premises and construct a new building wherein his son wants to open a garage of automobile repairs. Building plans were not prepared, much less approved. The applicant did not produce any material before the trial court to show his financial position and his ability to construct new premises after demolition of the old premises. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the courts below have concurrently held that applicant has not proved that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide. The finding recorded by the Courts below is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction. Revision Application is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)