1 CRA 1074/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1074 of 2010 H.B. Sawant ... Applicant versus (i) Dattatray Nilkanth Adivarekar (ii)Vinayak Parshram Wanivdekar (iii)Kamlakar Bapu Kamtekar (iv)Vasant Shankar Girkar (v)B.M. Mistry ... Respondents ... Mr. D.S. Sawant i/b Rajesh Parab for the appellant Ms. A.S. Malvankar for respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 12th January 2011. P.C. 1. Ms. Malvankar appears for respondents and waives service. Heard both sides. 1. The revision applicant is directed against the judgement and order dated 4 October 2010 passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai confirming a decree for possession 2 CRA 1074/10 passed against the petitioner. The two Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has acquired suitable residential premises and therefore, the respondent landlord is entitled to a decree for possession under section 13(1)(l) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short “Bombay Rent Act”). The view taken by the two courts below, in my view, is not only a possible view but in the facts of this case an eminent and proper view and no interference is called for in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the premises were not acquired in the name of the petitioner but in the name of the mother of the petitioner and therefore, that cannot be a ground for eviction. The lower appellate court in paragraph nos. 17 to 19 of its decision has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the flat was acquired by the petitioner and was transferred in the name of the mother only to circumvent the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The reasons given by the lower appellate court are appropriate and call for no interference. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alternative premises were additional premises as the suit premises were too small and therefore they cannot be regarded as a suitable alternative premises. The suit premises admeasure 200 sq.ft and consist of one room and a kitchen and were acquired by the applicant in the year 1966. The applicant became the member of 3 CRA 1074/10 another co-operative society in the year 1978 and construction of the alternative flat was completed in the year 1977. The flat measures a little over 400 sq.ft. While the applicant was living in the flat admeasuring 200 sq.ft the new premises are 400 sq.ft which are certainly much bigger than what the applicant was accustomed to live in. It cannot be said that the alternate premises are not suitable to him and his family members. There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected summarily. 4. After the order was pronounced in the open court, learned counsel for the applicant prays for some time to vacate the suit premises. Applicant is granted six months time to vacate the suit premises subject to his filing an undertaking of himself and adult family members in his family in the usual form within four weeks. (D.G.KARNIK, J)