1 cra169.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2010 Vijay Ramchandra Dhangekar, Deceased, through his L.Rs., Smt. Kiran w/o Vijay Dhangekar, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o. 4296, Anandi Bazar, Ahmednagar and others. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS Sadullakhan Mansoorkhan, Age: 70 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. 6, Rajesh Apartment, Kavijangnagar, Aurangabad road, Ahmednagar and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for applicants. Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2 cra169.10 01-09-2010 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2004 which confirms the judgment and decree dated 05-04-2004 in Regular Civil Suit No. 800 of 2000 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicants submits that, original plaintiff No. 1 has filed affidavit and he deposed on behalf of all the plaintiffs and stated that, he has accommodation at Aurangabad road, Ahmednagar. He is residing at Rajesh Apartment, Kavijangnagar, Aurangabad road, Ahmednagar. Learned Counsel further submitted that, even other plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 have other accommodation in various places at Ahmednagar. Therefore, according to Counsel for the applicants, finding recorded by the Courts below on bonafide requirement of the suit premises to the landlord is a perverse finding. Learned Counsel further submits that, size of the suit premises is 100 ft. x 30 ft. and 3 cra169.10 only around 100 sq. ft. premises are in possession of the revision applicants i.e. tenants. It is submitted that, the revision applicants and their forefather are in possession of the suit premises from 1928. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Paragraphs Nos. 5,6 and 7 of the examination in chief and cross examination of the plaintiff No.1 who deposed on behalf of all plaintiffs. Learned Counsel further submitted that, the intention of the landlord is that, he wants to recover the possession of the suit premises and sale it after getting its possession. It is submitted that, the landlord did not lead sufficient evidence so as to reach to the conclusion that, the landlord needs suit premises for his bonafide need. Learned Counsel further submitted that, merely issuing notice that the suit premises are in a dilapidated condition, would not necessarily lead to inference that the suit premises are in a dilapidated condition. No any cogent evidence was led by the plaintiffs to prove that, the suit premises are in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, according to 4 cra169.10 learned Counsel for the revision applicants, this Civil Revision Application deserves consideration. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 invited my attention to the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and submitted that, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to the provisions of Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to the admissions of the defendant himself i.e. revision applicant herein and evidence of other witnesses who have stated that the suit premises are in a dilapidated condition. Learned Counsel further submitted that, original defendant No.1 himself has admitted in his evidence before the Court that, the family of the plaintiff is increased and the plaintiff has no 5 cra169.10 sufficient premises. Therefore, relying on the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, Counsel for the respondents would submit that, this Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the Counsel appearing for the parties. In my opinion, there is no scope in this matter to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In Para-23 the lower appellate Court has dealt with the evidence of the defendant i.e. revision applicant herein, where he has admitted that the family of the plaintiff No.1 is increased and plaintiff No.1 has no sufficient premises for his residence and therefore, he is residing at Pipeline road. The admission of the defendant shows that plaintiff No.1 is having two major sons and they require separate room for their separate residence. It is further admitted by the defendant that plaintiff No.2 is having one room in his occupation, in 6 cra169.10 which, there is kitchen, bed room and also one drawing room. Admittedly, there are eight members in the family of plaintiff No.2 and only one room is in his possession. 5. Both the Courts below after appreciation of the evidence brought on record, recorded concurrent findings of fact that the landlord - respondent needs the suit premises for his family. The lower appellate Court in Para-24 has relied upon the reported judgment in the case of Shardabai Anandrao Durgule vs. Ramchandra Manku Pol, 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 225 and concluded that it is well settled that the landlord is best judge of his requirements. Once the the landlord has placed on record the material evidence to support his bonafide and reasonable need then tenant cannot dictate how they should adjust their need. 6. Coming to the second contention of the Counsel for the revision applicants that, the landlord has not proved that the suit premises are 7 cra169.10 in a dilapidated condition. In this respect, the evidence of four witnesses have been recorded by the Courts below. There is admission of the defendant that, the suit premises are 100 years old construction. Even according to the defendant, he is tenant of the suit premises from 1928. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention of the Counsel for the revision applicants. Therefore, there is no merits in the Civil Revision Application and stands rejected. . Original Record and Proceedings which are summoned from the Court below should be sent back forthwith, to the concerned Court. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11