1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2008 Shri Padmakar Sadashiv Fadnis ... PETITIONER (Original Defendant No.1) VERSUS Shri Surajmal Chandrabhan Dakale & anr. ... RESPONDENTS (No.1 Original Plaintiff, No.2 Original Defendant No.2) ..... Shri S.S. Manale, Advocate for the petitioner ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 3rd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The petitioner/ tenant (original defendant No.1) has filed the present Civil Revision Application challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge(2), Shrirampur 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No.16/2002 on 9.10.2006. It is to be noted that initially the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.4206/2007. However, same was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file Civil Revision Application by this Court vide order passed on 14.1.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Application accordingly. 3. At the outset, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.33/1996 against the petitioner (original defendant No.1) and defendant No.2 for eviction purpose,mainly on the grounds of bonafide requirement and the petitioner/ defendant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation as well as sub-letting of the suit premises and also on the ground of causing damage to the suit property. After trial, the said suit was decreed by the learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur, vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2001. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner/ tenant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.16/2002 before the District Court, Shrirampur. The said appeal was heard on merits and learned District Judge (2), Shrirampur dismissed the said appeal vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2006. Hence, the petitioner/ tenant has come in present Civil Revision Application challenging the correctness and legality of the said judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned District Judge (2), Shrirampur in Regular Civil Appeal No.16/2002. 3 5. It is material to note that out of the aforesaid grounds for eviction, the learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur answered the ground of bonafide requirement and suitable alternate accommodation acquired by petitioner in the affirmative, but negatived the ground of alleged sub-letting and also answered greater hardship in favour of the plaintiff/ landlord as well as answered the ground of causing damage to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/ landlord while decreeing the suit on 21.12.2001. However, the learned District Judge (2), Shrirampur in Appeal No.16/2002 negatived the ground of reasonable bonafide requirement of the plaintiff/ landlord but held that the plaintiff/ landlord would suffer greater hardship as well as negatived the ground of sub-letting, but upheld the ground of acquisition of alternate suitable accommodation by the petitioner/ tenant herein. Thus, it is amply clear that there is concurrent finding on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by the petitioner/ tenant herein by both the lower Courts. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not residing in the alternate accommodation and his son is residing there. However, on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that it was observed by the learned District Judge (2), Shrirampur that the suit premises is not in use and defendant No.1 i.e. petitioner herein who was residing in his own bungalow in City Survey No.1803. The certified copy of the property extract of said City Survey No.1803 disclosed that it was admeasuring 5669 sq.mtrs. and the tax assessment extract thereof (Exh. 55) 4 reflected that the block containing 4 rooms kitchen, bedroom, meeting hall was constructed therein. The said property is constructed by defendant No. 1 and petitioner herein by taking loan from L.I.C. and it is in his name. It has further come in the evidence that admittedly the petitioner's son is serving at Nasik in L.I.C. as Development Officer and he is residing separately with his wife from defendant No.1 since last three years. In view of this evidence on record, there is no substance in the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and same is required to be discarded. 7. In the circumstances, it is apparent that no law point/ legal issue has been raised by the petitioner herein in the present Civil Revision Application assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge (2), Shrirampur in Regular Civil Appeal No.16/2002 on 9.10.2006. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere in the said impugned judgment and order under the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In the result, present Civil revision Application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. (S.P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cra41.08