1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.294 OF 2008 Mohanlal B.Dhoot ..Applicant V/s Rajnikant R.Belitkar ..Respondent ---- Mr.S.N.Chandrachud for the applicant. Mr.Kiran Jain for the respondent. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 7th October, 2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. By consent of parties, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith. 2 This is a revision application filed by the original landlord of the premises who sought a decree of eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 16-1(I) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The record indicates that the trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit. The tenant then filed an appeal and the appellate Court has reversed the decree of the trial Court. The appellate Court has concurred with the trial Court on all aspects other than availability of finance. Advocate for the applicant has now filed an affidavit indicating that finance is available. In my view, taking into account the present position, it would be desirable that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for allowing the plaintiff to lead further evidence on the 2 limited question of availability of finance for re-constructing the property. The trial Court will decide the matter afresh after considering the fresh evidence as led by the plaintiff within four months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. It may be stated here that the Advocate for the applicant stated that the matter may be remanded to the lower appellate Court. I am not inclined to remand the matter to the lower appellate Court since no application is made to the lower appellate Court for additional evidence and in my view, it would be more convenient that the evidence will be led before the trial Court. The impugned decree of the lower courts are set aside. With the aforesaid directions appeal stands disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3