1 CRA-487.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.487 OF 2009 Smt. Suman Krishna Matkar & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. Sudhir Vitthalrao Bodhe & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Nitin Deshpande for the Applicants. S/Shri R.A. Thorat with P.B. Gujar for the Respondents. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 05, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the applicants/tenants were liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent in arrears, bona fide need of the landlord and the tenants having secured a suitable alternate accommodation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicants/tenants submitted that the tenants 2 CRA-487.09 had tendered the rent by money orders from time to time and those money orders were returned back to the tenants with the remark refused. He states that his clients had filed those receipts at Exhibits-96 to 99 and points out that there has been no cross-examination on this point. The learned counsel further stated that the tenants had deposited the rent in arrears from time to time in the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord rightly pointed out that the Courts below have duly considered the amounts paid by the applicants and found that on the date when the issues were framed, i.e., 27-8-1997, the rent was in arrears for 147 months against which the tenants had paid rent only of 90 months. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, as was then prevailing, the tenants were rightly held liable to be evicted. 3. On the ground of bona fide need, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the landlord had claimed possession of the premises for a maternity home of landlord s wife, who held the qualification of L.C.E.H.. He submitted that since she was a homeopath, 3 CRA-487.09 she could not have run a maternity home. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord points out that the landlord had in fact claimed possession of the premises for the purpose of residence since the wife of the landlord, who is L.C.E.H., was a heart patient and found it difficult to climb up stairs. The evidence of Dr. Jagtap had been tendered, who had proved the case papers as well as the other documents. As to the allegations of erasures or over-writings on those papers, the learned Judge of the Appellate Court has properly dealt with that aspect in para 15 of the judgment by observing that if the landlord wanted to produce fabricated documents, he could have had new case papers prepared and submitted them. He has rightly held that the erasures or over- writings have been explained by Dr. Jagtap properly and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Jagtap. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Courts below erred in holding that the landlord bona fide and reasonably needed the premises for residence. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the Courts below erred in holding that the accommodation at Pratapgadh was suitable alternate accommodation for the 4 CRA-487.09 tenants. He submitted that Pratapgadh was 40 kms. from Panchgani and therefore the accommodation at Pratapgadh could not have been held as suitable alternate accommodation. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord pointed out that the tenants sons are already settled elsewhere. There is no dispute that there is a bungalow at Pratapgadh. He submitted that unless the tenants show that they have a need to stay in Panchgani it could not have been held that the accommodation at Pratapgadh is not a suitable alternate accommodation. Therefore, even on this ground it cannot be said that the Courts below erred in concluding that the tenants had secured suitable alternate accommodation. Since they have alternate accommodation, there is no question of any hardship being caused to them if decree is passed on the ground of landlord s bona fide need. In view of this, the judgments of both the Courts below cannot be said to be erroneous, calling for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. 5. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, the decree may not be put to execution for a period of four week on the 5 CRA-487.09 applicants and all the adult members of their family furnishing on oath the usual undertaking within a period of two weeks. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)