:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1393 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Anil Singh i/by. Mr.R.O.Pathak, Adv. for the petitioners. Shri S.S.Rai for the Respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Singh appearing for the petitioner who is suffering a Decree for Eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the Respondent-plaintiff/landlord. 2. The courts below have concurred and held that the present petitioner is a retired employee of Air India. He is occupying the suit premises for a considerable period of time :2: :2: :2: and during his occupation had also moved the employer for allotting him the Service Quarters, which was granted. That apart, he has now retired. His sons have grown up and are earning enough. On the other hand, there are nine members in the Family of the Landlord and they are occupying 560 sq.ft of area. Considering, that the landlord has proved that the area in possession is inadequate to accommodate nine family members and one of the sons of the landlord likely to get married and requiring privacy, there is no way that these findings can be termed as perverse. The concurrent findings on the issue of reasonable bonafide requirement of the landlord therefore require no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Even on the question of relative hardship, I do not see how the reasoning in the lower Appellate court’s order and more particularly at pages 27 and 28 (paras 22 and 23) suffers from any infirmity. Both courts :3: :3: :3: have concurred that the present petitioner would not be suffering any hardship but greater hardship would be suffered by the landlord if a Decree of Eviction is denied to him. In paras-14 and 15 of the Trial Court’s order, materials in that behalf have been referred to. In my view, even that appreciation does not suffer from any error or perversity so as to call for interference under the Writ jurisdiction. 4. The submission of Mr.Singh that the judgment is vitiated, therefore cannot be accepted. The Writ petition is summarily dismissed. The ad-interim order to stand vacated. 5. At this stage, Mr.Singh applies for time to vacate. This request is opposed by the respondent. Considering that the Decree is passed for Eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord, which is established, interest of justice would be :4: :4: :4: subserved if time of 3 months is granted to the petitioner to vacate the Suit premises on the petitioner executing an Undertaking in usual terms within a period of 15 days from today. In default, the Decree to become executable forthwith. sd/- *******