1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 792 OF 2009 Baburao Govind Raut, since deceased his L.R. (A) Ganpati Baburao Raut & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. Haji Mehbubsaheb Haji Amirhamja Patwegar. ... Respondent. Mr. N.J. Patil for the Applicants. Mr. P.S. Dani for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th MARCH 2010. P.C. :- The Respondent’s – Plaintiff’s Suit of the year 1990 is finally decreed by the Lower Appellate Court, by the Judgment and Decree under challenge dated 20th August 2009. 2. The Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court is in favour of the Landlord – Respondent after prolonged litigation resulting in a remand from the Lower Appellate Court on one occasion and thereafter, post- remand in Appeal. The finding of fact is that the original tenant has sub-let the premises and some of the sub- tenants were before the Lower Appellate Court and before me as well. That finding is sustainable on the basis of the materials produced and the Lower Appellate Court was right in disbelieving the version that the original tenant has allowed a partnership firm of the same name to carry on the restaurant business. Once the Court below has found 2 that the original tenant is not a partner, then, persons running the hotel business as partners of a distinct firm, would show that there is sub-letting. There is no reason to interfere with such a finding of fact. 3. Further, on the ground of bona-fide and genuine requirement also there is no reason to interfere. The Suit property is at Kolhapur it is a developed city whereas, the landlord is presently carrying on business at Miraj from rented premises. If the landlord desires that his son shifts to Kolhapur to carry on distinct business, I do not see how he can be faulted. In these facts and circumstances, the finding on the ground of bonafide requirement and relative hardship does not warrant any interference. 4. Consequently, the Revision Application is without any merit and is dismissed. At this stage, on instructions from the Petitioner, who is present in Court, Mr. Patil prays for time to vacate and urges that the decree of eviction may not be executed for a period of one year from today. Mr. Dani opposes and submits that some reasonable time be granted, considering the landlord is litigating for nearly 20 years. 5. After taking an overall view on this aspect, interest of justice would be served if the execution of the subject decree for eviction is stayed till 31st March 2011 on the following terms and conditions :- (a) That the Petitioners submit an undertaking to this Court within a period of three 3 weeks from today stating therein that they alone are carrying on business/hotel business from the suit premises, that all licences shall stand in their name and none other is in possession thereof; (b) That they shall not induct anybody else nor create any third party rights in the suit premises till 31st March 2011; (c) That they shall continue to pay the amount as before until they hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises including clearance of all arrears up till date; (d) The undertaking shall also state that on 31st March 2011, the Petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondent – landlord and not seek any further extension; (e) Needless to state that if such an undertaking is filed, execution of decree is stayed till 31st March 2011. In default, the landlord can take possession of the premises in accordance with law. In either event, the landlord can recover possession by seeking necessary police assistance if the premises are not handed over. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)