: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2008 Mrs.Glyss Nevis & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s. Thackersey N. Dhandhukia & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Raj Patel i/b Mr.M.P. Patel for the Petitioners. Mr.D.G. Rangras for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the order and the judgment of the lower Appellate Court confirming the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court. The trial Court decreed the suit on various grounds. The lower Appellate Court however confirmed the decree on the ground that the Petitioner - tenant was in arrears of rent and permitted increase ; that the Petitioner had carried out additions and alterations of a permanent nature in the suit premises without the Respondent - landlord’s consent and on the ground of bona-fide personal requirement of the Respondent and that greater : 2 : hardship would be caused to the Respondent by refusing to passing a decree. 2. Interference with the concurrent findings of fact on these issues is not warranted. The evidence has been satisfactorily dealt with. There is nothing to suggest that the conclusions drawn by both the Courts is either perverse or unsustainable. Suffice it to note only a few aspects. 3. The Respondent had filed a suit on 6.8.1985. Plaintiff No.1 expired. Plaintiff Nos.2(a) to 2 (d) his heirs were brought on record. The Plaintiff occupied six rooms in the building in which the suit premises are situated. One room is used as a kitchen. The remaining five rooms are occupied by about 19 members of the Plaintiff’s family. In addition thereto it is their grievance that the married daughters who visit them occasionally cannot be accommodated due to paucity of space. 4. There can hardly be any doubt that the Respondent/Plaintiff require the suit premises, which consists of one room, bona-fide for their personal use. : 3 : 5. As against this, it is important to note that admittedly Defendant No.1, since deceased was residing in the suit premises as a tenant. He inducted the Petitioners i.e. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 into the suit premises. It was contended through out that no rights were created in favour of the Petitioner by the tenant. They merely entered upon the suit premises to look after the original tenant - Defendant No.1 as he was then aged. After his demise, protection is sought by the Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as the relatives of the original tenant. It is pertinent to note that the original Defendant during the cross-examination stated as under :- "It is incorrectly stated in my affidavit that I have no any permanent source of income. I do not know whether the Defendant no.3 has no any permanent job. The Defendant No.2 is a officer in Bajaj Electrical. I had nothing to show that she is in permanent job because I am not interesting to show that. The Defendant No.2 and 3 have got the premises at Mahim. I do not know whether they have disposed off that premises and they come to resided to the suit premises. I have not produced any such evidence to show that the Defendant No.2 is my niece. It is true that the Defendant No.2 and 3 are not related to me." (emphasis supplied) 6. I will presume that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are related to the original tenant. What is important is : 4 : that they have alternate premises at Mahim. They have not led any evidence to the contrary. There was no re-examination of the original tenant. 7. The mere fact that the Respondents may have accepted a transfer of tenancies would not by itself indicate that they were in fact entitled to possession of the premises and would have been entitled to retain the same even if they had not agreed to transfer the tenancies. 8. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. 9. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate however is extended upto and inclusive of 30.4.2009 subject to the Petitioners filing the usual undertaking in this Court on or before 20.12.2008. 10. After the order was dictated on behalf of the Petitioners, an application was made for a longer time to vacate the premises. It was stated that if a sufficiently long period is granted, they would vacate the premises unconditionally and without challenging the order of eviction. : 5 : 11. In view thereof, the time to vacate is extended upto and inclusive of 31.12.2009. This is subject to the Petitioners filing on or before 31.12.2008 an unconditional undertaking to vacate the premises as aforesaid on or before 31.12.2009. Needless to add that this is without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioners to claim mesne-profits.