1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2009 Ramesh Chander Abbi ....Applicant Versus Rani T. Wadhwani ....Respondent Mr. R. J. Manjra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Bhatt, Advocate i/b. Law Point for the Applicant. Mr. P. S. Dani with Mr. U. G. Tahiliani for Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2009. P.C. : Heard, learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is tenant’s Revision under the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”). A concurrent decree of eviction is passed in favour of the Respondent by both the Lower Courts on the ground under section 13(1)(g) of the Act i.e. reasonable and bonafide requirement. The suit premises consists of area admeasuring about 515 sq.ft. and is situated at Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055. There are four members in the Respondent/Landlady’s family. The Respondent/Landlady alongwith her family was staying in the premises at Colaba admeasuring about 500 sq. ft.. It is the specific case of the Landlady that this premises are not sufficient for the family of four members. It is further the specific case of Respondent/Landlady that she and her son are finding it difficult to stay together and therefore the suit premises are required for occupation of her son. The Lower Court after appreciating the oral evidence 2 lead by the respective parties came to the conclusion that the Respondent/Landlady proved that she needs the suit premises for reasonable and bonafide occupation. It is well settled that the requirement of the Landlord’s need not be absolute or compelling or arising out of dire necessity. The Landlord is the best judge of his requirement. If Respondent/Landlady in the above circumstances wants to occupy the suit premises, then she cannot be deprived and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding recorded by the Lower Court in this regard. 3. So far as comparative hardship is concerned, the same was answered in favour of the Respondent by both the Lower Courts. The Lower Appellate Court in paragraph nos.19 to 23 of the judgment dated 6th May, 2004, discussed this aspect. It was held that the financial condition of the Applicant is much more sound than that of Respondent. It was further held that the Respondent can afford to purchase alternative accommodation. Finding is also recorded in paragraph no.21 that the Applicant did not adduce any material on record to show that he made efforts to secure alternative accommodation. In the above facts, I find no reason to interfere in above revision in my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. The Applicant has also filed affidavit bringing out the subsequent events on record. In this affidavit, it is pointed out that Respondent/Landlady sold the flat at Colaba during the pendency of Appeal before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The Respondent/Landlady has filed reply to this Affidavit and has pointed out that by selling the flat at Colaba admeasuring about 550 sq.ft., she has purchased flat admeasuring about 520 sq.ft. at Kharghar. The son of the Respondent/Landlady already shifted to premises which is newly purchased at Kharghar. The Landlady has shifted to Pune with her sister-in-law and she propose to shift at Santacruz as soon as the suit flat is vacated. This fact is not contravened by the Applicant by filing a rejoinder. The area of Colaba flat and that of the flat at Kharghar is nearly 3 equivalent and therefore, the Applicant’s case cannot be strengthen by subsequent events which are brought on record. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Applicant, requested that the decree of eviction be stayed for a period of three months, in order to enable the Applicant to approach the Apex Court. Mr. Dani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has no serious objection. In view of the concession and in the interest of justice, decree of eviction shall not be executed for a period of three months from today, subject to the condition that the Applicant shall not create third party interest or part with possession of the suit premises. sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)