1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.174/2009 Ramakant Dattatraya Parab. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Sudhakar Anant Raut and others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.G.R.Rege, Advocate i/b Mr.L.G.Wainsakar and Ms.P.N.Koli, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate i/b Ms.Medha Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard the counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is the tenant's revision under the Bombay Rent Act. The Trial Court passed the decree of eviction against the Petitioner/tenant on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. This decree was challenged by the Petitioner before the lower Appellate Court by filing an appeal, however, the same came to be dismissed by the order 2 impugned in this Civil Revision Application. 3. The Respondent/Landlord is in possession of the premises which consists of two rooms and a kitchen. It is the case of the Respondent/Landlord that he is having three marriageable sons and because of shortage of accommodation their marriages are being delayed. The suit premises consists of two rooms and a kitchen with balcony. 4. Both the lower Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record and the judgments of the Apex Court, concluded that the Respondent/landlord successfully proved the bonafide personal requirement. 5. So far as the comparative hardship is concerned, it was concurrently held that the Respondent/landlord would suffer more hardship if the decree of eviction is refused to him. The lower Appellate Court held that the Petitioner/tenant never tried to search out for alternate accommodation. The lower Appellate Court also held that merely because the tenant cannot afford another accommodation by paying deposit is no basis to deny relief of possession to the landlord. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgments, I find no error in the impugned judgments so as to enable me to interfere in the present revision. 7. At this stage, Mr.Rege, learned counsel for the Petitioner 3 requests for some longer time to vacate the suit premises. 8. Ms.Sarnaik, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that she has no objection if a reasonable time to vacate the suit premises is given to the Petitioner/tenant. 9. The Petitioner is staying in the suit premises since last 37 years and therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice will be subserved if the Petitioner is given time till 30th April 2010 to vacate the suit premises. Accordingly, I dispose of the Civil Revision Application by passing the following order:- “Civil Revision Application is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is granted time till 30th April 2010 to vacate the suit premises on filing usual undertaking. The undertaking shall be filed within two weeks from today in the Trial Court. Needless to mention, if the Petitioner furnishes the undertaking as stated above, the decree shall not be executed till 30th April 2010.” JUDGE