: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.491 OF 2009 Farooque Mohsin Khambatti ... Applicant V/s. Siraj Abdul Hussein Contractor & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V. Walawalkar i/b Ms.Geeta Shastri for Applicant Mr.S.W. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 5, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Suit for eviction of the applicant was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises for the landlords’ use and hardship being caused to them. The trial Court held that the landlords had proved that they bonafide required the suit premises in order to accommodate one of the members of their family with his wife and children. It has also been recorded that the person was suffering from heart ailment and required to be housed on the ground floor premises which were in possession of the tenant. 2. The trial Court has therefore decreed the suit. The appellate Court has confirmed this finding and has further held that one Farid Saudagar who was in possession of the premises was not the legal heir of the original tenant within the meaning of section 5(11)(C) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947. : 2 : 3. Mr.Walawalkar, appearing for the applicant, submits that the landlords have suppressed the fact that they had an outhouse which could be used as residential accommodation as it admeasured more than 300 sq.ft. He submits that this fact was brought on record only when the plaintiffs were cross-examined. According to him, had the outhouse been taken into consideration by the trial Court and the appellate Court the suit would not have been decreed. 4. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that both the Courts below have for cogent reasons held that the plaintiffs had proved that they required possession of the suit premises reasonably and bonafide. They have considered the fact that the outhouse was not accommodation which was habitable and therefore have passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. There is thus no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Mr.Walawalkar has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand v/s. Jagdish Pershad & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 151 in support of his submission that since the plaintiffs are guilty of suppressing and concealing the accommodation available in the form of outhouse, the suit ought to have been dismissed. This judgment, in my opinion, does not support the case of the applicant-tenant. There is no concealment of any residential accommodation as required by the landlords in the present case. 5. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. On the application of Mr.Walawalkar the execution of the decree is stayed for three months.