1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 536 OF 2007 M/s.Sanjay Sales Corporation ... Applicant v/s Mrs.Mary D’Mello ... Respondent Mr.G.S.Godbole for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Shah for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The present civil revision application has been filed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendant for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises. Both the Courts below have held that the landlords have proved that plaintiff No.2 required the suit premises since his wife was not able to live in the same house 2 as her sister-in-law because of constant quarrels. She had suffered two miscarriages because of this stress. The suit was filed in the year 1982 and thereafter it appears that the plaintiff No.2 has died and his widow has acquired some other premises. However this, in my opinion, would not deflect from the fact that, at the time of filing of the suit the plaintiffs had the bonafide requirement of the premises. 3. Besides this, as rightly pointed out by the advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit premises could not be occupied by a person who was not an employee of the appellant Company. Both the Courts below have noticed this fact and have held that the plaintiffs have proved their bonafide requirement of the suit premises. 4. Mr.Godbole submits that the applicant has pointed out in the present application that the respondent has acquired alternate premises during the pendency of the litigation. He submits that acquisition of the new premises ought to be taken into consideration while deciding whether there is a bonafide requirement of the respondent for the suit premises. He relies on various judgments in support of his submission that when premises are acquired during the pendency of the proceedings in Court, this fact must be taken into consideration while considering whether the need of the 3 landlord has been eclipsed by the surrounding circumstances. Mr.Godbole also points out that despite specific averments in the application regarding acquisition of new residential premises there is no denial of the same. 5. Admittedly, the landlords were required to stay in tenanted premises only because the suit premises were not available to them. Besides stating that “the applicant has been informed.......” or “the applicant has learnt.........”, regarding acquisition of new premises by the landlords, no categorical statements are made in the application. There is no material placed on record to substantiate these statements. The judgments cited by the learned advocate for the applicant were delivered in the facts and circumstances arising in those cases. Therefore, in my opinion, the judgments cited do not help the case of the applicants in any manner. 6.. Civil revision application dismissed. 7. The learned advocate for the applicant sought a stay of this order. Mr.Shah, appearing for the respondent states that the decree will not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today on the usual undertaking being filed within a week from today. 4