1cra-41-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.41/2009 Nandu alias Hema Umakant Chawda ..Applicant. vs. Smt Anuradha Bansidhar Karanje and others ..Respondents. Mr Ketan Chothani for the Applicant. Ms Radhika Samant i/b Mr P.M.Havnur for Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J DATED: 12th MARCH,2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the rival submissions at length. The present application is taken up for final decision. In the present revision the consistent orders of the Trial Court and also the first Appellate Court are challenged by the present applicant-original defendant No.2. 2. In order to appreciate the rival arguments and the points of law so far as applicability of Section 5 (11) (c)of what is commonly known as the Bombay Rent Act, certain factual position is required to be mentioned as under:- 2cra-41-09 3. One Bansidhar, husband of present Respondent original plaintiff, was tenant during his life time with respect of the suit premises situate at Wakola Santacruz. He died on or about 22.8.1989. Admittedly, during the relevant time prior to his death relations between said Bansidhar and his wife i.e., present respondents were not so cordial and at that time Respondent No.1 was living away from the house of Bansidhar. After the death of Bansidhar, Respondent No.1 filed R.A.D No.4390/1989 before the Small Cause Court, Bandra  Mumbai against the landlord of the premises as defendant No.1 and also against one Smt Nandu, real daughter of present respondent No.1,plaintiff. Said suit was filed mainly placing reliance on the provisions of section 5 (11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act claiming the declaration as a tenant on the basis of last resided at the time of the death of Bansidhar, in the suit premises. Said suit came to be partly decreed with costs declaring plaintiff, Respondent No.1 as lawful tenant with respect to the suit premises, specifically mentioning as being the member of the family of the deceased tenant at the time of his death. By the said judgment and order landlord defendant was directed to issue rent receipt in the name of the plaintiff, as consequential relief of declaration and permanent injunction was granted against defendant no.1 restraining him from further transferring the 3cra-41-09 rent receipt then being issue in the name of defendant No.2 or to any other third party without following due process of law. By the said judgment and order it was also directed that defendant No.2 to restore the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within two months from the date of order. Said judgment and decree of R.A.D.No.4390/89 was challenged by then defendant No.2 Smt Nandu i.e., the present applicant. It is significant to note that present applicant is the real daughter of the present respondent No.1 plaintiff. The appeal filed by Smt Nandu defendant no.2 being Appeal No. 112/2005 came to be dismissed by the Bandra Bench of the Court of Small Causes Court at Bombay on 15.12.2008. Consequently, the decree passed by the Trial Court of Small Causes Court was upheld. 4. Loosing the matter in both the lower Courts, present Civil Revision Application was filed by original Defendant No.2, challenging the decree and for setting aside the earlier orders. 5. The only point urged before this Court on behalf of the applicant defendant No.2 is that there was wrong application of applicability of the provisions of section 5 (11) (c) of the Bombay Rent Act by the Trial Court and also the first Appellate Court and that there was error in law committed by the said Courts. For this purpose certain 4cra-41-09 evidence of the plaintiff and her neighbour was brought to the notice of this Court and it was canvased that at the time of the death of Bansidhar it could not have been construed that the plaintiff present respondent No.1 was residing in the suit premises. 6. Counter to the above arguments, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-Respondent No.1 placed reliance on the following authority:- (1966) 1 SCR 102: AIR 1966 SC 153 Pandurang Dhondi Chougule vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav 7. By taking shelter of the ratio propounded by the said authority, it is specifically submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure there is little scope so far as the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is concerned and while doing so it must be construed that there is nothing to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Trial and Appellate Courts, further argued. 8. Considering the rival submissions and still considering the evidence of the plaintiff and her neighbour as to stay of the plaintiff with her at certain occasions since ten years prior to her giving of evidence in the year 5cra-41-09 2004 and still considering the effect of the evidence of present applicant  defendant No.2 and her specific admissions as to not being on the premises at the time of the death of her father Bansidhar as the applicant was then married and staying with her husband and children and accepting her statement given to the police when it was recorded in the near proximity after the death of Bansidhar and as to her admissions as her mother i.e., present respondent No.1 was taking care of Bansidhar, hardly it can be said that the concurrent finding as to applicability of Section 5 (11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act is required to be interfered. In other words, the circumstances do not warrant any interference in the concurrent finding of both the lower courts and in that event the submission on behalf of the applicant  defendant No.2 as to involvement of law point on the aspect of applicability of Section 5 (11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Control Act cannot be accepted. 9. In the result, present Civil Revision Application is devoid of merits and as such dismissed. The order of the Trial Court in R.A.D.Suit No.4390/1989 is restored. Considering the special circumstances of the matter that the plaintiff was out of possession of the suit premises for which she was legitimately entitled, for a period of 21 6cra-41-09 years, the prayer for stay of the present order in Civil Revision Application is not granted. No order as to costs. (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI)