1 CRA No.15/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.15 of 2011 (1) Smt.Baby Bhagwan Pharate (2) Shri Sachin Bhagwan Pharate (3) Smita Bhagwan Pharate (4) Snehal Bhagwan Pharate ... Applicants versus (1) Smt.Sushilabai S. Chavan(deceased) 1A. Shalini S. Chavan 1B. Vijaya Prabhakarrao Chavan 1C. Vishwas Shivajirao Chavan 1D Sunil Shivajirao Chavan ... Respondent ... Mr. Subodh Shah for the applicants CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 28th January 2011. P.C. 1. This revision application is directed against a decree for eviction passed against the applicants (heirs of original tenant) by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. 2 CRA No.15/11 2. The suit filed by the respondents for possession was decreed on the ground that respondents required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation. The trial court held that the requirement of the respondents was reasonable and bonafide and the finding is affirmed by the appellate court. The finding is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the question of greater hardship has not been considered by the courts below. The submission is without merit. In paragraph no.20 of the judgment of the trial court, it has considered the issue regarding hardship. Similarly, in paragraph no.21 of its decision the appellate court has also considered the issue regarding hardship. The two courts below have concurrently held that the tenant was expected to make efforts to find out alternative accommodation. Admittedly, the applicants made no attempt to find alternative accommodation and they have admitted so in their deposition. It is not a case wherein the efforts were made by the applicants to find out alternative accommodation and that they were unable to do so. In the circumstances, the finding about the greater hardship recorded by the two courts below is also a possible finding of fact which required no interference. Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. (D.G.KARNIK, J)