: 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 JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2008 Vinayaka Dashrath Mane ..Applicant. Vs. Manik Marutrao Pandhare ..Respondent. Mr.Nitin Deshpande for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and assertion of evidence. 2. This is especially so in view of the clear findings on the question of bona-fide requirement. The Applicant/tenant admittedly has a manufacturing unit elsewhere and is using the suit premises as a godown. The Respondent on the other hand has no other source of income and desires to set up a flour mill in the suit premises which admeasure 105 sq. ft. only. Even assuming that he has another premises admeasuring 40 sq. ft., it would make no difference. 3. Apart from this, both the Courts below have also : 2 : held that there were arrears of rent. 4. In the circumstances, Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate is further extended upto 31st August, 2008.