: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2008 Suresh S. Sakhare ....Petitioner V/s. Ramakant S. Kathawale & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.P.S. Dani with Mr.S. Sakhare for the Petitioner. Mr.P.N. Karlekar for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. There is no warrant for interfering with the decree for eviction granted by both the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. Both the Courts have analysed the evidence satisfactorily. 3. Respondent No.1 was the Plaintiff. This Civil Revision Application is filed by Respondent No.5, who was original Defendant No.5. Respondent No.2/Defendant No.1 is the landlady. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 (Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively) were the developer of the property. : 2 : 4. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence satisfactorily came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 was the tenant in respect of the suit premises which admeasuring 180 sq.ft. The finding is that the Petitioner/Defendant No.5 was a gratuitous licensee. In this connection, it is important to note that the Petitioner/Defendant No.5 did not lead any evidence. The Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 examined himself. The Courts below have also placed considerable reliance upon a letter addressed by the Petitioner’s wife to Respondent No.1, requesting him to acquire the adjoining premises. The letter indicates that the Petitioner had in fact no right, title and/or interest in respect of the suit premises. I am unable to come to a conclusion that the appreciation of the evidence was incorrect. 5. The conclusion that after the building was reconstructed by Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, they behind the back of Respondent No.1 surreptitiously entered into an agreement with the Petitioner in respect of the suit premises which was in the reconstructed building cannot be faulted. There is no plausible explanation as to why Respondent No.1 would have given up his right to permanent alternate accommodation in the newly constructed building. : 3 : 6. The mere fact that the ownership/purchase agreement was entered into with the Petitioner would make no difference. That cannot possibly deprive Respondent No.1 of his valuable rights of remaining as a tenant in the newly constructed premises. 7. Nor do I find that the frame of the suit and the prayers warrant any interference. Respondent No.1 has sought a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the suit property qua Defendant No.1 and/or Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 in respect of the suit premises and that the Petitioner has no right, title and interest in the newly constructed premises and for a decree, ordering Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to give possession of the newly constructed premises to him. The mere fact that in prayer (g) that Defendant No.5 is not mentioned, does not warrant interference of the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate the premises is extended upto and inclusive of 31.1.2009 subject to the Petitioner filing the usual undertaking on or before 30.11.2008. The only modification required to be made is that the decree be limited to the premises admeasuring 180 sq.ft. carpet area as : 4 : that is claimed by Respondent No.1 himself. The Executing Court will do the needful regarding the apportionment of the property.