CRA/897/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.897 OF 2010 Khimji Devji Shah, Decd., Thru’ Purbai K. Shah (Dedhia) & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. Nirmalaben Shambhuprasad Patel & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rajesh Datar for the Applicants. Ms. A.S. Patel, Respondent No.3, present in person. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 24 TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. A praecipe has been moved for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 20th December, 2010 passed by this Court in this Civil Revision Application. 2. In the cause title, the number of Civil Revision Application should read as “C ivil Revision Application No.897 of 2010” instead of Civil Revision Application No.896 of 2010. 3. In para (1) of the said order, the Regular Civil Suit No.510 of 1985 should be read as “Regular Civil Suit No.227 of 1986” and the Civil Appeal No.74 of 2003 should be read as “Civil Appeal No.75 of 2003”. CRA/897/2010 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.896 OF 2010 Khimji Devji Shah, Decd., Thru’ Purbai K. Shah (Dedhia) & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. Nirmalaben Shambhuprasad Patel & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rajesh Datar for the Applicants. Ms. A.S. Patel, Respondent No.3, present in person. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Civil Revision Application challenges the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan by its order dated 3rd May, 2003 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.510 of 1985 and confirmed by the Ad- hoc District Judge-1, Kalyan by its order dated 16th August, 2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.74 of 2003. Both the Courts below have concluded that the original applicant namely Khimji Devji Shah and his heirs, who are the applicants herein, should be evicted from the suit premises. The Courts below have opined that: (i) the landlord has been able to establish that the premises were not in use for a period of six months and; CRA/897/2010 3 (ii) that the premises had been sublet to some other person. 2. Mr. Datar, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, contends that the suit premises were let for composite use, both, for residential and commercial purposes. According to him, no evidence has been placed on record to indicate that the residential premises were not in use by the applicants. Furthermore, he submits that there can be no subletting of commercial premises as the landlord must establish that the premises or business was assigned to the original defendant. 3. On a perusal of the evidence led by both the Courts below, it is found that the Courts below have not arrived at any erroneous conclusions. There is evidence on record of the original applicant’s widow wherein she has stated that she along with her family stayed in the suit premises upto 1977, after which she and her family started living in Kantilal Building which is owned by her son. As regards the subletting, there is evidence on record to indicate that some other person was conducting the business in those premises and, in fact, was paying Rs.2,500/- to the applicants. 4. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. 5. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed.