1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2009 Ramniklal R. Shah ...Applicant. v. Satyendra K. Tatuskar ...Respondents. Mr.Cyrus Bharucha with Dhiren H. Shah and Ms.P.Mani Bajpai, advs. For the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh S. Kachare i/by Tushar Dahibawkar M/s. Dahibawkar & Co. advs. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Original defendant has filed this revision application against the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court allowing the appeal no.60/00 setting aside the judgment in RAE Suit No. 921/2355/93 and passing a decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of plaintiff/respondent. 3 According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the building known as Pandurang Bhavan at 225, Lady Jamshedji Marg, Shivaji Park, Bombay. The defendant was a tenant in block no.11, fourth floor . Plaintiff sought decree for eviction on several grounds including ground of bonafide requirements of his family. The trial Court after hearing the 2 parties, dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the landlord was allowed on the ground of bonafide requirement only. The appellate Court held that if the decree is not passed, greater hardship would be caused to the landlord. 4 On perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence led by the parties and particularly, admissions made by the landlord in another suit RAD No.1670/93 filed by the tenant against the landlord, it appears that when the suit was filed for eviction, family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife and three sons namely, Nitesh aged 24 years, Anup aged 21 years and Akash aged 12 years. According to him, two of his sons were of marriageable age and for want of sufficient accommodation, he could not perform their marriages. By this time, his youngest son must also have become major and must be of marriageable age. From the admissions, it appears that the landlord was in occupation of block no.10 on the fourth floor and area of that block is around 400 sq.ft. His admissions also revealed that on the first floor , he was occupying block nos.4 and 5, having size of 350 sq.ft. each. Each of the block consists of one room and kitchen. One of the blocks was in occupation of Nitesh at that time. Block No.11 is in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. Size of that block is equal to that of block no.10. 3 From this evidence, it appears that each of the block is small one consisting of one room and kitchen and the family of the landlords consisted of himself , his wife and his three sons, who were to be married. The learned counsel informs that two of his sons are already married, and, therefore, needs of the family would increase. In such circumstances, there is a reason to believe that suit premises are actually required by the landlord for the needs of his family and, therefore, the appellate Court came to conclusion that landlord requires the suit premises for his own bonafide requirements. The learned counsel for the Tenant before this Court pointed out that in the cross-examination of the landlord, it was put to him that he had booked a flat in Gita Nagar with Sonam builders, which he denied, but he had shown ignorance if his son Nitesh had booked said flat. No documentary evidence was placed before the Court to show that any such flat was held by the plaintiff/landlord or his family members. Today during the arguments before this Court, the learned counsel for the revision applicant produced photo copy of the letter dated 19.7.1997 purported to have been issued by the Sonam Builders to Nitesh asking him to make the payment of certain amount as the tiling work was being taken up. On the basis of this he wanted this Court to believe that such 4 flat was booked by Nitesh. Firstly, no such material was placed before the First Appellate Court. Secondly, no such notice was given to the parties to produce original documents nor any evidence is there on record that such flat is booked or taken possession of by the landlord or his son Nitesh. Document before the Court is only photo copy, which is not admissible in the evidence. For the sake of arguments even if that photo copy is accepted, still it does not show that Nitesh had taken possession of the said flat and was living there. In fact, on a querry by the Court, the learned counsel for the applicant, after taking instructions from his client, made a statement that out of the 3 sons, two are married and both the married sons are living in the same building where the suit premises is situated. It indicate that Nitesh, who is the eldest one and who had allegedly booked that flat is not living there. Gita Nagar is situated at Mira Road, while the suit property is situated at Dadar. Mira Road is far off suburban area and, therefore, merely because the landlord or his son has some property at Mira Road, he or some of his family members can not be forced or compelled to live at Mira Road while some will continue to live at Dadar. 5 Taking into consideration all these circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the appellate 5 Court. I find no substance in the present revision application. 6 Therefore, Revision Application stands dismissed. 7 At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks time as he intends to challenge this order, therefore, the impugned decree shall not be executed till 12th May, 2010. 8 Certified copy be issued immediately. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.298 OF 2009 Ramniklal R. Shah ...Applicant. v. Satyendra K. Tatuskar ...Respondents. Mr.Cyrus Bharucha with Dhiren H. Shah and Ms.P.Mani Bajpai, advs. For the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh S. Kachare i/by Tushar Dahibawkar M/s. Dahibawkar & Co. advs. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard. 2 This revision application is filed by the tenant against the dismissal of his suit whereby he claimed right to use certain W.C. He had also filed C.R.A.No.297 of 2009 challenging the decree for eviction in favour of the landlord. Decree for eviction has been maintained by this Court dismissing the said Revision Application No.297 of 2009. In view of this, nothing survives in this Revision Application and it stands dismissed accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)