: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.487 OF 2007 Smt.Rama Balu @ Ballaya Yadav & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Shri Vinod Nandkumar Yadav & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Aniruddha Pratinidhi for Applicants Mr.R.D. Roghe for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for Resp. No.5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 6, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed to challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Courts have held that the respondent landlords are entitled to the suit premises which is one room being House No.2300, ground floor, New Modikhana Camp, Pune-411001 on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlords. The other ground of eviction which the landlords have urged and which has been accepted by the trial Court is default in payment of rent. However, this ground has been repelled by the appellate Court. Therefore, the only ground on which the applicant has been evicted is the bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the landlords. The landlords are two brothers. Respondent No.1 was examined before the trial Court and he has stated that the : 2 : premises in which he was residing were insufficient for himself and his nuclear family besides his brother who was to get married. The Respondent No.1 has conceded the fact that his father had purchased premises in Meher apartments which was a one room kitchen flat, sufficient for himself and their mother. It is in these circumstances and in view of the impending marriage of Respondent No.2 that the premises was sought in order that Respondent No.2 would have exclusive premises for himself and his family in future. 2. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the landlords have suppressed the fact that they had acquired additional accommodation and, therefore, were not entitled to a decree. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani v/s. Durgashankar G. Shroff & Ors., 2004 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 333 to buttress his arguments. The learned advocate also submits that in view of the judgment in the case of Devendra Shantilal Vyas vs. Mrs.Katy Nari Chinoy, 1989 Mah.R.C.J. 599, the applicant cannot be evicted since the aforesaid judgment lays down a ratio that if the landlords purchase the property knowing full well that there are tenants in the property, he cannot seek eviction of those tenants. 3. I have perused a copy of the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court with the assistance of the learned advocates for the parties. In my opinion, both the Courts below have not committed any error in granting the decree. There is material on record to indicate that the accommodation available with the landlords was insufficient for their needs. The acquisition of new premises by their father does not take care of the need of respondent No.2 who was to get married and for whom the suit premises were required. There is evidence on record to indicate : 3 : that the accommodation in which the landlords were residing was insufficient for their needs. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error requiring any interference by this Court in revision. 4. The submission that the landlords have suppressed the fact that he had acquired new premises cannot be accepted since the acquisition of new premises was by the father of the landlords and not by themselves. 5. The submission of the learned advocate for the applicants that the landlords ought not to have filed the suit for eviction when they knew that the premises were tenanted cannot be accepted. The judgement relied on by him does not in any manner indicate that in all cases where the landlords acquire building which is tenanted he cannot seek eviction of the tenants on the grounds available to him under the Rent Act. 6. Civil revision application dismissed. 7. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicants, the applicants are granted time of three months to vacate the suit premises on the usual undertaking being given by them and all the adults in their family to this Court within two weeks from today.