1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2007 Shri Ranganath Ramchandra Galgali ..Petitioner Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Pralhad Joshi & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.M.Pradhan, Advocate, for Ms. Leena Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.Sawant, Advocate, i/b. Crawford Bayley & Co., advocates for respondents Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th January, 2008. DATE: 8th January, 2008. DATE: 8th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit against the present petitioner/defendant for eviction 2 and possession on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the defendant-tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and he had shifted to that house and was residing there and, therefore, for more than six months he had not used the suit premises and the same was kept locked. The defendant denied this in his written statement. 3. After hearing both the parties, both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding that the defendant had acquired alternative accommodation and he was residing in his own house and that he had not used the suit premises for more than six months prior to the filing of the eviction proceedings. The appellate Court noted that the plaintiff had examined as many as four witnesses and three of them had clearly proved that the defendant was residing in his own flat which he had acquired. On the basis of the evidence, the Courts below accepted the oral evidence of Mangesh Joshi, who is one of the plaintiffs, that the defendant was not residing in the suit premises for more than six months. 4. At the time of arguments for admission, learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner has shown me the copies of evidence of the parties. In the cross-examination, the defendant himself admitted that he had purchased a flat at Borivli with his own money. 3 The flat is admeasuring 572 sq. ft. having all the modern amenities. The suit premises has an area of 260 sq. ft. only. He had admitted that he has three daughters. All of them are married and none of them is living in the suit house. In view of the admissions of the defendant himself, I find no fault with the findings given by the trial Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. I find no substance in the present Revision Application. 6. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)