1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 508 OF 2009 Shri Bhaskar Gopal Shahade ... Applicant v/s Smt. Lalita Dattatraya Dhotre (since deceased ) & ors. ... Respondents Mr.U.B.Nighot for the applicant. Mr.Y.S.Bhate for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has moved this Court against the concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below. The suit was filed against the applicant for recovery of the tenanted premises on the ground of – (i) carrying out additions and alterations by permanently altering the structure of the suit premises; (ii) acquisition of suitable accommodation; and (iii) non-user of the suit premises. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiffs had proved the aforesaid grounds 2 for eviction of the applicant. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the alterations in the suit premises were made after obtaining the consent of the erstwhile landlord. The letter issued by the landlord is produced on record. Subsequently, it appears that the MHADA had issued a letter on 12.5.1987 indicating that a complaint was received from other tenants in the building because of alterations made by the applicant. It appears that the applicant’s architect replied to the same and thereafter there was no further correspondence or action taken by the housing authority i.e. MHADA. 3. Admittedly, the applicant has acquired an accommodation in Pune. However, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J. Marathe v/s P.V.Kaloke, reported in 2004 Bom. R.C. 158, acquisition of premises outside the local area would not automatically lead to the forfeiture of the accommodation given to a tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Therefore, only because the applicant had acquired premises in Pune, would not necessarily mean that he was liable to be evicted. The findings of both the Courts below on this issue are therefore set aside. 3 4. However, both the Courts below have considered the fact that the suit premises have not been used for a long period of time. The electricity bills which were produced indicated that from 1998 to 2004 the energy consumption was as little as 2 to 37 units. Therefore, the ground of non- user of the suit premises has been proved. 5. In my opinion, there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below which require no interference in a revision application. 6. Civil revision application dismissed. 7. On the application made by Mr.Nighot appearing for the applicant, the respondents shall not execute the decree for a period of 12 weeks from today on the usual undertaking being furnished to this Court within two weeks from today by the applicant and all the adults in his family. ..... 4