-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2009 M/s. Savilles Pvt.Ltd. .. Applicant. V/s. 1. Shri Keshav Krishna Moghe, since .. Respondents. deceased through LRs : 1.A.Smt Prabha Keshav Moghe & Ors. --- Mr. S.K.Shinde i/by Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Applicant. Mr. C.T.Kriplani for the Respondents. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009 DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009 DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Kriplani, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a tenant’s revision application under the Bombay Rent Act. The respondent, the original plaintiff Shri Keshav Krishna Moghe, now deceased, was the landlord of the suit premises. The decree of eviction was sought on the ground that the plaintiff required suit premises reasonably and bonafidely for the use and occupation of his family members. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and -: 2 :- decree of bonafide requirement was also claimed on the ground that Prakash, son of the original plaintiff is serving in abroad at Behrin and he is on the verge of retirement and he intends to shift to Bombay after retirement. It was further averred that after death of the plaintiff, his widow is staying at Pune. She is suffering from cancer and therefore possession of the suit premises required for occupation of the plaintiff no.1A i.e. widow of the original plaintiff. Both the lower courts below after appreciating evidence on record and considering the ratio of Apex Court judgment concluded that it is a prerogative of the landlord to decide about his requirement and court cannot dictate landlord about the manner of enjoying premises owned by him and that landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. Consequently, the bonafide and reasonable requirement was held to be proved. 3. Sofar as the comparative hardship is concerned, the lower courts answered the same in favour of the plaintiff in case decree of eviction is refused. There is no dispute that the suit premises was obtained for accommodating one Mr. Krishnanath Donde, who was the Executive of the appellant/ defendant company and said Krishnanath Donde is already expired. The appellant-defendant has not brought any evidence on record that any of the heirs of deceased -: 3 :- Krishnanath Donde are directors or executives of the defendant company. It was also the contention of the appellant/ defendant company that it has shifted its office to the suit premises in the year 1992 and running its business from there. Thus even as per the case of the appellant/ defendant the suit premises are not being used for the purpose for which it was let out and they have changed the user of the suit premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, finding of the comparative hardship, in my opinion, is rightly answered in favour of the respondent- landlord. 4. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner invited my attention to the conduct of the respondents. He submitted that when the suit was filed for eviction, there was one flat in Venus Co-operative Society Worli, at the disposal of the family members of the plaintiff-landlord. He further submitted that another son of the landlord by name Vikas has already purchased a flat at Andheri during the pendency of the appeal. However, both the flats are not disclosed in the plaint and this conduct of the landlords dis-entitles them from the decree of possession. 5. Mr. Kriplani, the learned counsel for the respondents per contra submitted that the flat in Venus Apartment at -: 4 :- Worli was belonging to the widow of the original plaintiff, i.e. Plaintiff 1A-Prabha and this flat was sold subsequently for family compulsion. He submitted that this fact was disclosed in as much as the address of the plaintiff-landlord was shown at Venus Apartment at Worli and subsequently plaintiff no.1A Prabha changed her address to that of Pune. He further submitted that Vikas Moghe has purchased flat at Andheri and its area is less than 800 sq.ft. which cannot accommodate all the family members. 6. Having considered above submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant. Firstly, the flat in Venus Apartment at Worli was independent property of the widow of the original plaintiff and the plaintiff landlord had no concern with the said flat and secondly this flat was sold by Smt. Prabha for family compulsion and thereafter, she shifted her residence to Pune. So far as the flat purchased by Vikas Moghe at Andheri is concerned, admittedly the area of the same is less than 800 square feet and all the family members of the plaintiff-landlords cannot be accommodated in that flat. Further this is an independent property of Vikas in which the widow of original plaintiff as well as Prakash cannot, as a matter of right, claim right to reside. -: 5 :- 7. The widow of original plaintiff No. 1-A-Smt. Prabha, admittedly is suffering from cancer. There is no dispute that she is staying at Pune. She want to come to Bombay for medical treatment. There is no dispute that Prakash, son of the landlord is on the verge of retirement and he wants to settle in Mumbai after his retirement. The suit premises are not being used for the purpose for which it was given to the appellant-tenant. Taking over all view of the matter, I find no error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with in my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....