1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.719 OF 2009 Hasmukh Jivraj Mehta ..Applicant V/s. Chandulal Hirachand Modi ..Respondent Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b.Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel i/b.Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Civil Judge as well as the District Judge holding that the Respondent landlord has proved bona fide need of the premises and had also proved that greater hardship would be caused to the Plaintiff. When the matter came up before this Court on 17th December, 2009, this Court found that the 2 finding of the learned District Judge on the question of comparative hardship was cryptic and did not disclose reasons for the decision that was arrived by the learned District Judge on the issue. The learned District Judge was, therefore, directed to return a finding on the issue of comparative hardship. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant, this remand to the District Judge entailed a complete hearing on the question of comparative hardship. The Applicant had filed an Application before the learned District Judge in order to tender additional evidence in respect of the premises of one Banker which had allegedly become available to the landlord. The learned District Judge rejected the Application holding that remand was limited to render the findings on the issue of comparative hardship. The learned District Judge also rejected the Application for spot inspection and various 3 other Applications and re-iterated his findings on the issue of comparative hardship by giving reasons by Order dated 17th December, 2009. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the learned District Judge erred in construing the Order passed by this Court on 17th December, 2009, as merely empowered the learned District Judge to render the findings on the issue of comparative hardship, without considering any developments that might have altered the fate of parties. I have carefully considered this submission. The Order dated 17th December, 2009 is very clear. It does not empower the learned District Judge to re-hear the issue. He was to only record the findings and give reasons, as the findings and reasons recorded by the learned District Judge were 4 cryptic. Therefore, the learned District Judge was only required to explain what passed on in his mind while answering the issue of comparative hardship. That the learned District Judge has done. And that was all he was required to do. Therefore, rejection by the learned District Judge of the Applicant s Application for examining the witness to prove that the premises of one Banker had become available cannot be assailed. 5. In any case, it is significant that even the learned Counsel for the Applicant was apprehensive that the Banker was not likely to support the Applicant and the Applicant would have been required to take recourse to cross examination of Banker in order to elicit the fact that the Banker had vacated the premises. Thus, the Applicant is proceeding on a very shaky foundation to seek alteration in the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on the issue of comparative hardship. 5 6. The learned Counsel also sought to assail that the decree passed by the Courts below on the ground that need set up was that of landlord's nephew. The landlord and his nephew were admittedly residing separately and were having separate business. It is not necessary for the tenant to peep in to the affairs of the family of the landlord. It is for the landlord and his nephew to sort out as to how should their affairs be managed. If the Courts below concurrently held that need set up by the landlord was established by him, without the finding being shown to be perverse, invocation of the revisional jurisdiction is unwarranted. 7. In view of this, Civil Revision Application is rejected. 8. The learned Counsel for the Applicant states that in that case, the Applicant may be 6 given six months time to vacate the premises. This request is opposed by the learned Counsel for the landlord. Had the Applicant not proceeded with the the Revision Application, & not pressed if this indulgence could have been shown. Since the Application is being decided on merits, all that can be done is to direct that the execution of decree may be deferred for a period of eight weeks on the Applicant s furnishing usual undertaking within a period of two weeks. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)