1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2009 Shantilal Ratanchand Porwal ..Applicant Age : 55 years, Occu : business Residing at Mahavir Jewellers and Estate Center, Near Gram Panchayat office, Taluka Wada, District Thane. V/s. 1. Ravindra Vanmali Bhanushali Age : 75 years, Occu : Agriculturist R/o. At Ulhas Book Depot, near Gram Panchayat office, Taluka Wada District Thane. ..Respondents 2. Vishnu Vanmali Bhanushali (Since deceased, represented by his only heir and legal representative Respondent No.1) Mr.P.S.Dani i/b.Mr.Girish G. Togani, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.Sandesh Patil, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2010 2 JUDGMENT . Civil Revision Application Nos.370 of 2009 and 371 of 2009 question the common Judgment in Civil appeal Nos.10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006, whereby the learned District Judge maintained decree of applicant's ejectment from suit premises. Civil Revision Application No. 372 of 2009 is directed against dismissal by the learned District Judge of his appeal No.9 of 2006 against dismissal of his suit for Specific Performance of Contract. 2. Facts necessary for deciding these three Civil Revision Applications are as under :- Respondent herein is the owner of a shop with an adjacent room, and a godown. The shop and room were let out to applicant in the year 1978 for business-cum-residence on monthly rent of Rs.100/-, where as the godown was let out in 1980 on monthly rent of Rs.30/-. According to 3 landlord, applicant removed north South wall separating the shop and the adjacent room, causing damage to the building and put the entire structure to business use. Applicant was also in the arrears of rent from July, 1992 to March, 1993. Tahsildar sought a 15 meter strip for road widening. Landlord also needed the premises for use by his grown up sons. Applicant had allegedly built a house on a plot in his wife's name and had purchased another plot. Applicant allegedly pressurized landlord into signing a compromise on 18th November, 1992, to which landlord did not agree. The landlord, therefore, filed two suits for ejectment of applicant from the two premises. 3. Applicant contested both the suits denying all the allegations. He claimed that there was only one tenancy. According to applicant, he had advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the landlord in accordance with agreement 4 dated 18th November, 1992, for repairs to the premises damaged in road widening. The applicant, therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit No.37 of 1993 for direction to the landlord to complete repairs in terms of agreement dated 18th November, 1992. The first two suits by landlord and this suit by applicant were disposed of by the trial Judge by two Judgments dated 14th October, 2005. The District Judge too disposed of applicant's three appeals by two impugned Judgments dated 1st January, 2009. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The Courts below have rightly held that merely because landlord had subsequently started issuing are receipt for Rs.130/- for both the premises, the two tenancies do not merge. The Courts below also rightly refused to believe the evidence of tender of rent by Money Order, 5 observing that Money Order receipts Exhibits 135 to 221 do not show, who was the payee. 6. On the question of demolition of wall, Courts below have found evidence of Respondent and her witnesses Laxman Thakare and Arun Kamble to be reliable. The applicant, on the other hand, claimed that alterations were made by the plaintiff himself. He, however, admitted in cross examination that there was a kitchen and bath room in the room behind the shop which he demolished and built a kitchen and bath room in godown premises. Thus, it cannot be said that Courts below erred in holding that applicant had made permanent alteration in the premises without landlord's consent. 7. There is nothing to show that Courts below erred in holding that landlord had proved bona fide need for his two sons, and that the applicant has other premises available. In view 6 of this, Civil Revision Application Nos.370 of 2009 and 371 of 2009 would have to be dismissed. 8. In the suit filed by the applicant, the learned trial Judge held agreement dated 18th November, 1992 as proved. A mandatory temporary injunction had been granted enabling applicant to repair the shop and he had accordingly repaired the shop. The Courts below held that payment of Rs.42,000/- was not proved and the applicant's evidence in this behalf was vague and contradictory, which is not shown to be erroneous, since the pleas were that Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash and applicant had spent on material and labour cost for repairs a sum of Rs.42,000/-. The landlord had admitted receipt of only Rs.20,000/-, which, according to landlord was spent in reconstructing front portion demolished for road widening. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Courts below erred in concluding that a decree for specific 7 performance could not be granted. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- received by landlords was applied by them for repairing frontage of the shop. Applicant himself claims to have spent Rs. 42,000/- on labour and material costs for repairs. So there would remain nothing to be performed. In view of this, even Civil Revision Application No.372 of 2009 too is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, all the three Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. 10. The decree for the applicant's ejectment shall not be put to execution for a period of eight weeks subject to applicant's furnishing usual undertaking. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)