: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.Lalita Belindage for the Applicant. Mr.D.S. Mhaispurkar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 6TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. It is not possible to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts belong. The defence of the Applicant was struck of by the trial Court. It is stated that the application for revision of that order was also dismissed. There has been no further challenge to the order which has attained finality. If for any reason that order was set aside, it would have been a different matter. : 2 : 2. In this view of the matter the lower Court cannot be faulted for having come to the conclusion that the Respondent had established bona-fide requirement. That the power of attorney holder of the Respondent may have premises would make no difference to the Respondent’s case. 3. No interference with the other findings of fact are also warranted. 4. Before me it was sought to be contended that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not the landlord. This point was neither pleaded nor argued before the Courts below. It was sought to be established before me on the basis that though in the body of the plaint, it is stated that the property belongs to the Respondent/Plaintiff, in the verification clause, the constituted attorney has stated that she has verified the plaint on behalf of the husband i.e. the Plaintiff’s father. It is also alleged that the notice (Exhibit 41) was addressed : 3 : on behalf of the Respondent’s father. These are the aspects which if raised, the Respondent would have had an opportunity for dealing with. There could be several explanations or reasons for the same. Without evidence and without having raised the point, it is difficult to non-suit the Plaintiff at this stage. 5. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate the suit premises is extended upto 31.12.2008, subject to the Applicant filing the usual undertaking within four weeks from today in this Court including that in the event of the Applicant not succeeding before the Supreme Court, they will comply with the decree including by handing over possession of the premises.