1 ndm 36-rpcl.30788.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVIEW PETITION (stamp) NO. 30788 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2010 Pareshkumar Jethalal Chheda Vs.Guruprasad Satyanarayan Tiwari and ors Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Dilip Bodake a/w V.R.Sutrale for the Applicant / Review Petitioner. Mr. Vashdev T. Lulia for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10 th January, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of the Review Petition. The order under review is dated 29 th September, 2010 passed in Revision Application preferred by the Review Petitioner. 2 The Review Petitioner is the Applicant (tenant) in Revision Application and the 1 st to 3 rd respondents are landlords – original plaintiffs. The suit related to a residential premises at Borivali, Mumbai. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of non-user and on the ground of acquisition of suitable residence by the Review Petitioner at Dombivali, district Thane. The area of the suit premises is 200 sq.ft in a chawl situated at Borivali in Mumbai and finding of the Courts below is that the 2 Review Petitioner acquired a premises admeasuring 240 sq.ft consisting of two rooms at Dombivali, Mumbai. The decree of the trial Court on the ground of non-user and acquisition of suitable residence was confirmed by the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. 3 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the suit premises is situated at Borivali (West), Mumbai and the premises allegedly acquired by the Review Petitioner is situated at Dombivali in district Thane. He, therefore, submitted that the acquisition of the premises at Dombivali by no stretch of imagination can be an acquisition of a suitable residence. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Neither before the trial Court nor before the Appeal Court, the Review Petitioner came out with the factual contention that the premises at Dombivali were not suitable. As the said contention has not been raised in the Courts below, the 1 st to 3 rd respondents had no opportunity to meet the said factual contention. Thus, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Review Petition is rejected. 5 In view of rejection of the review petition, Civil Application No. 211 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]