:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 OF 200 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 OF 200 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 OF 2008 Satyanarayan H. Agarwal ...Applicant. v. Shivpratap Indrapal Singh ...Respondent. Mr.A.G.Damle , adv. for the Applicant. Mr.D.S.Belwalkar , adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th February, 2008. DATE: 28th February, 2008. DATE: 28th February, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The plaintiff/respondent is the landlord and the present applicant, who is original defendant no.1 is tenant in the suit premises being flat no.6 first floor Dhirendra Villa, Daulat Nagar, S.V.Road, Borivali. The plaintiff filed suit seeking eviction and possession of the suit premises on several grounds. Besides the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit premises for the use of plaintiff himself and his family, it was also contended that the defendant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation in Simplex House, 44 Jai Hind Colony, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle (West), Bombay and having acquired that accommodation, defendant and his family members had shifted to the said house and the suit premises were not being used for more :2: than six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit for the purpose for which the suit house was let out to the defendant. It was also alleged that the defendant no.1 had sublet the suit premises to the defendant nos.2 and 3. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the contention that the suit premises was sublet by the defendant no.1 to defendant nos.2 and 3. However, the trial Court upheld the remaining contentions of the plaintiff and passed the decree for eviction and possession against the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 thereafter filed Civil Appeal No.238 of 2004 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, he has filed the present Revision Application. 4. After perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I find that the defendant himself admitted to have acquired alternate accommodation at Simplex House in Juhu Scheme. There is sufficient documentary evidence to show that he and his family members have actually shifted to Simplex House. In the electoral roll the defendant and his family members are shown as residents of Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle. Wedding card of the son of the defendant also clearly shows their residential address of Simplex House. There is also evidence in the form of correspondence between the :3: plaintiff and the BEST authority to show that for a quite long time in the suit premises, there was no consumption of electricity. Taking into consideration all these facts, I find no fault in the impugned judgments. There are concurrent findings of the facts of both the Courts below, which are duly supported by the documentary evidence and oral evidence on record. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or error in the findings of the Courts below. 5. In the result, Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)