1 (CRA 416 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.379 OF 2011 Shankar Digambar Dombe and Ors. ...Applicants Vs. Dagdu Basling Korpe since deceased through his LRs. Smt.Mahadevi w/o.Dagdu Korpe and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Sameer A. Kumbhkoni for Applicants Mr.Surel S. Shah for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 5th July, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Respondents. 2. The Applicants are the original tenants /Defendants. The Respondents are the original landlords/Plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for eviction on various grounds. The Trial court decreed the suit by judgment and order dated 29.6.2002. The appeal which was filed by the tenants in the District Court was also dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 (CRA 416 of 2011) Applicants submitted that the Lower Courts had not taken into consideration the fact that the Plaintiffs had sold one proper being CTS No. 2164/C which is adjacent to the road and it was in actual possession of the Plaintiffs. It was submitted that this fact clearly shows that the requirement of the Plaintiffs was not bonafide or genuine. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has invited my attention to the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that it has been brought on record by the Plaintiffs that the Defendants had several premises in their possession and they do not require the suit premises. 5. I have perused the impugned order as also the order of the Trial Court. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the evidence on record and have recorded a finding that the Plaintiffs have made out a case as pleased by them in the plaint and had granted a decree eviction. It has also come on record that the Petitioners herein have several shops and residential premises in their possession and they have also own considerable agricultural land. Therefore, no hardship would be caused to the Defendants. Hence, this is not a fit case to interfere with the concurrent 3 (CRA 416 of 2011) finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Writ petition is dismissed. However, the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is stayed for a period of eight weeks in order to enable the Petitioners to approach the Apex Court. Writ petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)