1 CRA 517/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 517 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Ms. Z.S. Irani for the applicant. Mr. H.J. Lulia for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This revision application is filed by a tenant against an order for eviction passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. 3. A suit filed by the respondent for possession was dismissed. In an appeal, the appellate Bench passed a decree on the ground that the applicant had acquired the suitable 2 CRA 517/10 residential premises elsewhere. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant took me through the evidence and submitted that the finding recorded by the appellate Bench is perverse and needs interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In my view, the finding recorded by the appellate Bench is a possible finding of fact. It may also be noted that the applicant tenant did not enter the witness box to deny the allegation of acquisition of alternative premises, but he chose to examine a power of attorney. The power of attorney was not his family member or even a relative of the applicant but was a stranger (friend). In the absence of any perversity in the finding of fact, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision application is accordingly rejected summarily. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for stay of this order as the applicant wants to 3 CRA 517/10 challenge the order. This order shall remain in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)