: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.649 OF 2009 Harumal Dayaldas Verma, Decd., Thru’ Raju Harumal Verma .. Applicant V/s. Lajwanti Gobindram Melwani .. Respondent Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik for the Applicant. Mr. H.R. Pawar for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. This Civil Revision Application has been preferred against the order passed by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Pune. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent herein, i.e. the landlady, had proved that she bonafide required the suit premises for her own use. It has also been held that the applicant was a defaulter in payment of rent and, therefore, the Suit has been decreed. : 2 : 2. The main contentions raised on behalf of the applicant-tenant in this Court are : (a).that the respondent-landlady had abandoned her contentions regarding bonafide requirement of the suit flat in view of the fact that an earlier Suit filed on this ground had been withdrawn by her. (b).that the present Suit for bonafide requirement of the suit premises was filed on the same grounds as contended in the earlier Suit. (c).that the tenant could not be termed as a “defaulter” in payment of rent as the rent claimed by the landlady was for the period from 1st January, 2002 till the end of November, 2002, whereas the notice terminating the tenancy was issued in December, 2002 and it was not : 3 : in consonance with the provisions of law. The learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, therefore, submitted that the decree passed by the trial Court and which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court ought to be set aside. (d).that the tenant had deposited all the arrears of rent and was regularly depositing rent in the court upto 23rd September, 2009. 3. I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below. In my opinion, the Courts below have committed no error by decreeing the Suit. In the earlier Suit filed by the landlady, it was contended that she required the premises bonafide as she and her husband wish to return to India since they had crossed the age of 70 and wanted to live in a conducive climate for them. In the present Suit, an additional ground was mentioned : 4 : namely that the political condition in Philipines where they were stationed for years was deteriorating and, therefore, it was necessary to return to India. 4. Both the Courts below have considered the fact that on evidence the landlady had proved that she bonafide required the premises and that no hardship would be caused to the tenant if a decree was passed against him. The Courts below have found that the tenant had inherited a building after the death of his father and was, therefore, in joint ownership of the building with his siblings. The Courts below have also found that there was no material on record to indicate that a tenant had any attempts to find alternate premises after he was issued a letter terminating his tenancy. 5. As regards the contention that the tenant is not in arrears of rent as the entire amount has been deposited, assuming this submission is correct, in any event the Courts below have concurrently found that the landlady had : 5 : established her case for bonafide requirement of the suit premises and, therefore, in my opinion, the decree for ejectment has rightly been passed. 6. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 7. The learned Advocate for the applicant seeks a stay of the execution of the decree. The stay is granted for a period of four weeks from today on the applicant furnishing usual undertaking to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......