-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2009 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2009 IN IN IN C.R.A. NO. 187 OF 2009 C.R.A. NO. 187 OF 2009 C.R.A. NO. 187 OF 2009 1. Ramchandra Panickar & Anr. .. Appellants. (Org.Defendants) V/s. Dr. Vishwanath Padmanar Bhakta .. Respondent. (Org.Plaintiff). --- Mr.Vaibhav Joglekar with Mr.Ajay Panicker for Appellants. Mr.R.J.Thakkar for the Respondent. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 24th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 24th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 24th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Joglekar, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. This is the defendant’s revision under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent- landlord sought decree of eviction on the ground that the premises have not been used by the defendant without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of filing of -: 2 :- the suit. The suit was filed on 30th March, 2002. In order to prove his case, the respondent-landlord examined himself and personnel from M.T.N.L. and the employee from BEST. The respondent-landlord in his evidence categorically stated that the appellants-defendants are not residing in the suit premises without reasonable cause for the period of six months immediately prior to filing of the suit. The respondent-landlord also examined PW-3, an employee from BEST. PW-3 has produced on the record a chart of electricity consumption which is at Exh‘D’. Perusal of the said chart reveals that during the relevant time i.e. from 30th August, 2001 to 26.04.2002 the total consumption of electricity was hardly 10 units. Both the lower courts below, based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 concurrently held that the plaintiffs -landlord succeeded in proving that the suit premises are not used for the period of six months preceding to the filing of the suit. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and after having gone through the depositions, I do not find any error in this finding recorded by the both the courts below so as to enable me to interfere in my jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. 4. In the result the civil revision application is dismissed. -: 3 :- 5. In view of the dismissal of the C.R.A., civil application no.153/2009 will not survive and the same stands disposed of as such. 6. Mr. Joglekar for the Appellants at this stage seeks twelve weeks period to vacate the suit premises. Mr. Thakkar has no objection if reasonable time is given. In view of the concession given by the respondent time to vacate the suit premises is granted to the appellants-defendants for a period of ten weeks from today subject to filing of the usual undertaking by the appellants within a period of three weeks from today in the trial court. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....