1 CRA 698/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 698 OF 2008 Surendra Yashwant Deole .. Applicant V/s Smt. Asha Paranjpe .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for the applicant. Mr. Anand Lavate i/b Mr. Ketan A. Chothani for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. This revision application by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th June 2007 passed by the District Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal in a suit for eviction. 3. The applicant sought eviction on two grounds, namely reasonable and bonafide requirement and on the ground of nuisance. As regards the ground of bonafide requirement, admittedly the applicant was in possession of 600 sq.ft. of area 2 CRA 698/10 earlier and subsequently he received possession of another 600 sq.ft. of area from another tenant Mr. Karkhanis. Though the applicant has not given the number of rooms in his possession before the receipt of possession from Kharkhanis and after the receipt of possession from Kharkhanis. Mr. Kanetkar for the applicant submitted that prior to the decree against Karkhanis, the applicant was in possession of 3 rooms and subsequnelty he received possession of approximate 3 more rooms. Thus, the applicant is in possession of 6 rooms while his family consists of 4 members, namely the applicant himself, his wife and two children. In my view, the view taken by the two courts below that the applicant has not established reasonable and bonafide requirement is not only a possible view of facts but imminently a preponderant view which calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. Counsel for the applicant referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, (2003) 2 SCC 320, and a decision of this Court in Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani v. Durgashankar G. Shroff, 2004 (Supp.) BCR 333, and submitted that it is the duty of the Court to consider whether by passing a partial decree no hardship would be caused to either side. The question of 3 CRA 698/10 passing a partial decree would arise only after reasonable and bonafide requirement is established. In the present case, the reasonable and bonafide requirement was not established and, therefore there was no need of considering the question of partial decree. The decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. 6. The second ground for eviction was of nuisance. The only nuisance alleged is that the respondent made a police complaint about the receipt of blank telephone calls at night. If a person receives blank calls at night, it is but natural for him to make a complaint to the police. When asked by the police about whom he suspects, he named the landlord as a possible suspect cannot by itself be regarded as a nuisance. Copy of the alleged police complaint/FIR lodged by the respondent was not produced before the Court. In my view, the two courts below have rightly rejected the ground of nuisance. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant tendered an additional affidavit in which it is stated that the applicant has given the premises in his possession on leave and licence. This fact goes against the claim of bonafide requirement of the applicant. If the applicant requires additional premises, there was no reason 4 CRA 698/10 for him to give part of the existing premises on leave and licence. 8. For these reasons, there is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)