1 cra989.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.989 OF 2010 Mohan Mangesh Lotlikar ...Applicant vs. Shabbir Rajabali Tayyabali Vasaiwala & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.M.Bhate for the applicant None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :DECEMBER 3,2010 P.C.: 1 By this revision application, the original defendant-tenant has challenged the concurrent decrees of eviction passed against him under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 on the grounds of acquisition of suitable residence and carrying out permanent construction. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even going by the findings of the Courts below, the building Kamlabai Niwas was the property of the applicant s mother and it was not established by the respondents-landlords that the applicant is either the owner of the said building or is holding domain or control over the said building. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pramila Madhav vs. Waman [1999 (1) Mh.L.J. 830], he submitted that the acquisition by the applicant was not proved. As far as 2 cra989.sxw permanent construction is concerned, he submitted that the evidence on record shows that the suit premises was in dilapidated condition and therefore, the applicant was forced to shift elsewhere. He pointed out that at highest what can be said is that the repairs were carried out to the suit premises and the decree could not have been passed on the ground of carrying out tenantable repairs. 3 I have considered the submissions. The trial Court has recorded elaborate reasons for passing a decree on the ground of acquisition of suitable residence. The findings of the trial Court can be summarised as under : a) the suit summons was served to the applicant at the address of Kamlabai Niwas. b) The address for service filed by the applicant before the trial Court is of Kamlabai Niwas. c)The assessment extract of Kamlabai Niwas shows that the said building is having residential premises and the applicant is shown therein as the owner. d)The electricity bill of the said building stands in the name of the applicant. e)The applicant admitted that the said Kamlabai Niwas is a building consisting of ground plus first floor. f)The applicant admitted that the building was constructed in the year 1988 after the death of his mother. g)The applicant did not come out with a case that he has no right, title or interest in respect of the building Kamlabai Niwas or that the same is not suitable to him. 4 The aforesaid findings are based on the documentary 3 cra989.sxw evidence on record and admissions of the applicant himself. The Appellate Court has recorded a general agreement with the aforesaid findings. Hence, no case is made out for interference as far as plea on the ground of acquisition of suitable residence is concerned. 5 As the decree will have to be confirmed on one ground, it will not be necessary to deal with other grounds. There is no merit in the revision application and the same is rejected. JUDGE