: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2009 Subhash Bapu Hambir .. Applicant V/s. Somwar Peth Namdeo Shimpi Samaj Daivya Mandal Trust & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. H.S.S. Murthy i/b. Smt. Lalita Panchakshari for the Applicant. Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant has moved this Court against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Small Causes Court, Pune and the District Court, Pune, with respect to the bonafide requirement of the respondents-landlords and the nuisance being caused by the applicant-tenant. Both the Courts below have found that the Trust which is the landlord of the suit premises required the suit premises for running its own office as well as a library and study room for the students belonging to the community for which the Trust has been established. : 2 : Both the Courts below have found that there is no impediment in granting the decree as the suit premises are required bonafide by the Trust. 2. It was submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bapubhai Mohanbhai vs. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir and Nagardas Narandas vs. Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 492 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Avinash V. Mhapankar vs. Prabhakar S. Kelkar & Ors., reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 220, residential premises which are obtained on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord cannot be put to use as commercial premises. 3. This submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant is untenable. Both the Courts below have found that the respondents-landlords reasonably and bonafide required the suit premises for the purpose of their office and for running a library for the students from a particular community. The question of changing the user from : 3 : residential to commercial, therefore, does not arise. 4. As regards nuisance, the learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant states that it is true that on several occasions the applicant-tenant had placed certain articles of furniture in the passage outside the suit premises. However, as of today, the applicant-tenant has removed those articles and undertakes that he will not obstruct the passage in any way whatsoever in future. 5. Even assuming this statement is accepted, the fact still remains that the suit premises are required by the respondent-Trust bonafide for their own use. The respondent-Trust has stated that they wish to run an office next to the temple which is situate in the suit property. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts record by both the Courts below. 6. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. : 4 : 7. Mr. Murthy appearing for the applicant-tenant submits that some time be granted to the applicant- tenant to vacate the suit premises. The decree will not be executed for a period of one year from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant-tenant and all adults in his family to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......