: 1 : cra.572.2010.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.572 OF 2010 Ramesh S. Bhagwat ... Applicant V/s. Jagannath M. More & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P. S. Dani i/b Shiva Patil for the Applicant Mr.A.B. Tajane for Resp. No.1 CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, who is the original defendant in RCS No.66 of 2000. The respondents before this Court are the original plaintiffs and landlords. They filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises admeasuring 5 metres X 3 metres. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, the said premises are required for starting business for Durgesh and Mangesh who are sons of the deceased brother of plaintiff No.1 Jagannath. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had other shops also and there were no bonafide requirements. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction. The Appeal filed by the defendants came to be dismissed. Against concurrent finding of facts the : 2 : cra.572.2010.sxw defendant has preferred the present application. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out from the cross- examination of the plaintiff that pending the suit some other hotel premises were also got vacated by the plaintiffs. However, plaintiff No.1 deposed that that shop is already used. It has come in the cross-examination that the said premises of the Deepak Hotel are being used for running business by his second son Balu @ Sunil. About several premises in occupation of the plaintiffs and their family members, questions are put and it appears that each of the premises are being used by different members of the family, who are running different businesses. The defendant was inducted in the premises in 1974. According to the plaintiffs due to increase in the size of the family and as the boys in the family have grown up and each of them requires accommodation for running business, the suit premises are required. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 3. In the result, the revision application stands dismissed. 4. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the revision applicant makes a request to stay the operation of the decree for six months. Subject to the revision applicant/defendant filing undertaking within two weeks before this : 3 : cra.572.2010.sxw Court to vacate the premises, to pay all the arrears and not to create any third party interest, execution of the decree shall remain stayed for a further period of six months. However, if the undertaking is not filed within the stipulated period, the decree may be executed any time. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)