1 CRAG-407.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.229 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2010 Vithal Ramchandra Muthenwar & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. Madhukar Shankarao Kumar .... Respondent Shri J.S. Kapre with Ms B.P. Jakhade for the Applicants. S/Shri Vivek Walavalkar i/b Kunal Bhanage for the Respondent. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 21, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against concurrent findings of the learned Judge of Court of Small Causes, Mumbai and the Appellate Bench of the said Court whereby the Courts held that the applicants were liable to be evicted in order to satisfy the bona fide need of the landlord. The Courts also held that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the 2 CRAG-407.10 decree of ejectment is not passed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The first objection of the applicants was that the decree is a nullity since it was passed against persons who were not identified. Defendant No.1 is mentioned in the title of the plaint as the heir and legal representative of late Bhumabai Sayaji. This may be possible because the plaintiff did not know who were the heirs of Bhumabai Sayaji. But the defendant himself has come up with the story that he was Bhumabai Sayaji's brother s grandson and, therefore, since he was occupying in that capacity, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the legal representatives of late Bhumabai Sayaji have not been arrayed as parties in the suit. In any case, the suit was not for any unauthorised occupation of the premises by the applicants. The suit was filed by the landlord on the ground of bona fide need. The landlord was shown to be in possession of only 250 sq.ft. of area. The suit premises are 160 sq.ft. in area. It was stated that the premises were required for the growing needs of the landlord s family, particularly one of the sons of the landlord who, unfortunately, died during the pendency of the 3 CRAG-407.10 appeal. The learned Judges rightly held that this did not mean that the need of the landlord has come to an end. It has to be seen that the area available with the landlord is 250 sq.ft. and the area of premises, the possession whereof is sought, is 160 sq.ft., that is, the total area which would become available to the landlord would be just 410 sq.ft.. Even if the unfortunate demise of the landlord s son is taken into consideration, still by any standards an area of 410 sq.ft. is not luxuriant for the family of the landlord and, therefore, it cannot be said that the need established by the landlord was not a bona fide need. The concurrent findings are not shown to be perverse and do not call for any interference. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the landlord had filed another suit against another tenant on the same ground but had not prosecuted an appeal against the dismissal of that suit. It is not for the tenant to dictate as to which of the tenants the landlord should be chasing. Therefore, this contention has to be rejected outright. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant next 4 CRAG-407.10 submitted that the Courts below have wrongly inferred that premises bearing Survey Nos.562 and 563 are available to the tenants when they are, in fact, not available and they are temple premises. All the same, fact remains that the premises are the ones to which the tenants are entitled to. Now it was for the tenants, after the landlord filed the suit for ejectment on the ground of bona fide need, to start searching for accommodation for themselves. If they went on believing that they have an unassailable right to occupy the premises for all the times to come, irrespective of the landlord s need, they have to blame themselves. In any case, in India, it is not unusual for people to reside in temples and, therefore, the learned Judges were not wrong in holding that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. There is no merit in the revision application. The revision application is rejected. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants may be granted six months time to vacate the premises. The applicants shall file affidavit, containing usual terms, of all the adult members of the family stating that they would 5 CRAG-407.10 vacate the premises by 31-1-2011 and till then shall pay compensation, quantified at Rs.300/- per month to the landlord. 6. In view of rejection of the revision application, no order is required to be passed on Civil Application No.229 of 2010 and same also stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)