1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2009 Govind Sakharam More & ors .. Applicants V/s Harishchandra Dattaram Puranik ..Respondent Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi, Advocate, for the applicants Mr.D.G.Bagwe i/b.Mr.Kantilal H. Kanojia, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is filed by the tenant impugning the decree of eviction passed by both the Courts below on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. 2. The respondent herein is the landlord, who filed R.A.E.Suit No.880/2054 of 1992 on the ground of bona fide requirement. Requirement is of his son Umesh, who has 50% disability and who is 2 permanently handicapped as paralyzed below waist and using full length clappers and two clutches. The suit premises are situated on the ground floor of the building. Parties went to trial. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement and also held that the comparative hardship would be more on the part of the plaintiff, if the decree was not to be passed, then on the part of the defendant, if the decree was to be passed. 3. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal before a bench of Small Causes Court being Appeal No.84 of 2005. By its Judgment & Order dated 13th January, 2009, the said appeal was dismissed and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. 4. Both the Courts below have held that need of the suit premises for Umesh a physically handicapped person is reasonable and bona fide. Both the Courts below have also held that the present premises with the plaintiff on the third floor of the suit building are not 3 sufficient for the growing members of the plaintiff's family. The Courts below have also considered that the plaintiff and his wife are aged and it is difficult for them to climb the stair case to go to their third floor premises. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff and his family comprising of the disabled son Umesh, his handicapped wife Kalpana, their two children, second son, one unmarried daughter and one brother of the plaintiff's wife are residing on the third floor, comprising of a one bed room flat. The Courts below, therefore, were of the view that the need of the plaintiff was reasonable and bona fide and it is not for the tenant to dictate to the plaintiff in that regard. On the point of comparative hardship both the Courts have held that the defendant has two premises being Room Nos.9 and 15 at Anu-Niketan, Mugbhat Cross Lane, Bombay – 400 004 and premises at Dhobiwadi Acharya Building respectively on the ground floor. All the said premises are being used by the defendant for the business. The defendant accepted in his evidence that the Municipal Corporation has not given any permission to use the premises for business. Both the Courts below have also taken into consideration the fact that in the year 1994, the defendant had 4 acquired the premises at Dhobiwadi Acharya Building and that the premises in Surya Mahal were disposed of by him in the year 1992. Therefore, the Courts below were of the view that the case of the defendant that he tried to search for premises but could not get them on account of his financial condition could not be accepted. The Courts below considering the size of the plaintiff's family and the premises available with him recorded a finding that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff, if the decree was not to be passed then to the defendant, if the decree was to be passed. 5. On behalf of the defendant i.e.the applicant herein it is sought to be contended that Umesh on the basis of whose requirement the suit came to be filed is working in the Income Tax Department. He can get official quarters and therefore, the requirement of Umesh cannot be a ground to evict the petitioner. The said contention has been dealt with by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have negatived the said contention. In my view, no fault would be found with the said reasoning of the Courts below. A last ditch attempt is made on behalf of the defendant by contending 5 that the defendant is ready to exchange the suit premises with the premises of the plaintiff on the higher floor. In the teeth of the material on record as regards the need of the plaintiff's family the said contention cannot be countenanced. It is significant to note that the plaintiff is a retired person and he is waiting to get possession of the premises since the year 1982. 6. As mentioned here in above, both the Courts below on the basis of material which was before them have concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff on the point of bona fide requirement as also comparative hardship. Having considered the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, in my view, no case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. On the application of the learned counsel for the applicants, the instant order is stayed for a period of 12 weeks. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) 6