: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2010 Sulochana Tukaram Bendre & anr. ... Applicants V/s. Hiraben Chandakant patel ... Respondent Mr.D.U. Siroya with Amit Munde for Applicants Mr.H.S.S. Murthy for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has filed the present civil revision application challenging the order passed by the Small Causes Court. The case of the landlord respondent was that the applicant defendant has not used the premises for the purpose that they were let for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of the suit. 2. It is contended that on behalf of the applicant that the pleadings in the plaint fell short of the requirements of section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act inasmuch as the words “without reasonable cause” were not used. It is contended that the plaintiff must specifically state and plead that the premises were not used “without reasonable cause” for a period of six months for a decree of eviction to be passed u/s 16(1)(n). : 2 : 3. The appellate Court has considered this plea and has rightly held that the defendants were aware of the case that had to be answered by them. The parties were permitted to lead evidence on the issue and, therefore, the applicant could not be permitted to raise an objection that the evidence in that regard should be excluded. In any event the burden would shift on the tenant to prove that he was not occupying the suit premises for a reasonable cause, once the landlord establishes that the suit premises were vacant for six months preceding the date of filing of the suit. 4. In my opinion, the appellate Court has committed no error by confirming the decree passed by the Small Causes Court. There are no jurisdictional errors requiring correction by this Court under its revisionary jurisdiction. 5. Civil revision application is dismissed. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant prays that the defendants be given some time to vacate the premises. Mr.Murthy this application and submits that there is a finding recorded by the Courts below that from 1998 onwards, nobody had entered into the suit premises. He therefore, submits that no time need be granted to the applicant to vacate the premises. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned advocates, the time to vacate the premises is granted for four weeks on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicants and all adults in the family within a week from today.