IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 363 OF 2008 Mohanlal Sarchand Shah since deceased through heirs & Legal Representatives...... ...... Petitioners V/s Keshavsinh Dwarkadas Kapadia... ........ ...... Respondent. Mr.R.A.Thorat, Adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.A.K.Abhyankar, Sr.Counsel for the respondent. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. 13th OCTOBER, 2008. PC: This is the tenant' s petition filed under Bombay Rent Act. The respondent No.1-Landlord filed a suit for possession of the suit room on the ground of change of user from residence to commercial, non- user for a period of six months prior to filing of the date of the suit, the petitioner having acquired alternate accommodation and subletting the suit premises. 2. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently held that respondent No.1-landlord has proved all the aforesaid four grounds and consequently passed a decree of eviction against the petitioners. 3. There is no dispute that the suit premises is being used for 1 commercial purpose. It was the specific case of the landlord in para 3 of the plaint that the suit premises were let out to the petitioner for the purpose of residence and he has changed the user to commercial. In para 4 of the written statement the petitioner admitted that the suit premises were let out to him for the purpose of residence. In view of the specific admission of the petitioner in his written statement both the Courts below held that the ground of change in user is proved by the landlord-respondent No.1. Once it is found that the premises are being used for commercial purpose though same were let out for residential purpose then the ground of non user for the purpose for which the premises were let out for the period of six months prior to filing of the suit is also proved. So far as the ground of subletting is concerned it is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are occupying the suit premises on table space basis. In that view of the matter the Courts below held that the ground of subletting is also proved. As far as the ground of alternate accommodation is concerned the lower Courts after appreciating the evidence of landlord of premises, which petitioners allegedly have acquired, concluded that this ground is also proved. The findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse. There is no error apparent on the face of record. Hence I am not inclined to interfere in the same in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. At this stage Mr.Thorat, learned advocate for the petitioners 2 seeks stay of execution of decree of eviction for 12 weeks. Mr.Abhyankar, Senior Counsel has no objection to grant of stay for reasonable time subject to undertaking. In the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice decree of eviction is stayed for a period of 8 weeks subject to the petitioners and their family members filing an undertaking within a period of two weeks from today that they will not part with possession of the suit premises and shall hand over the same to respondent No.1 subject to outcome of the proceedings in the Apex Court. Civil Revision Application stands disposed of in above terms. 13.10.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 3