1 1 cra.215.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2011 Mrs. Nirmalaben Babubhai Makwana. ... Applicant Versus Ashok Manilal Dube. ... Respondent ----- Mr. S.R.Page for the Applicant. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 Not on board. Taken on board. 2 The submissions were fully heard on 9 th December, 2011. However, order was not passed as the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant had sought time to take instructions. 3 The revision Applicant is the original Defendant and the Respondent is the original Plaintiff. The Applicant was a monthly tenant in respect of the residential premises of which the Respondent is the landlord. The suit was filed by the Respondent for eviction against the Applicant on the ground of non-user for a continuous 2 1 cra.215.11 period of six months prior to filing of the suit. The trial Court passed a decree of eviction on the ground of non-user which has been confirmed in the appeal. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant invited attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Courts below. He submitted that the finding that the Applicant was not using the suit premises for a period more than of six months prior to institution of the suit is completely erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. He pointed out that the user by the Applicant during the relevant period of six months has been duly established. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The Courts below have relied upon the report of the Court Commissioner who has recorded that the windows of the suit premises have been damaged and from the position of the suit premises it appears that it was unused for a considerably long time. The Courts below have considered the evidence of the Applicant who stated that her husband had obtained a business premises near the suit premises and that the suit premises 3 1 cra.215.11 was taken only for resting purposes in the afternoon and during the night time. This case made out by the Applicant has been tested by both the Courts below. The case that the suit premises was taken only for resting has been disbelieved by both the Courts below. A finding of fact has been recorded that there is not even a ration card obtained by the Applicant at the address of the suit premises. The Applicant admitted that when the bailiff visited the suit premises, she was not in the suit premises. 6 There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded regarding non-user for a period of six months or more before the institution of the suit. Hence, the revision application is dismissed. 7 Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. [ A.S.OKA, J ]