: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 SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4110 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4110 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4110 OF 2008 Shri Prabhat Kumar Indra ...Petitioner. v. Shri Manohar Ramchandra Dhadphale ...Respondent. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Apte with Mandar Limaye , advs. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 25th November, 2008. DATE: 25th November, 2008. DATE: 25th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. Petitioner before this Court is the original defendant and tenant in suit premises, which is the ground floor portion of the building. Respondent before this Court is the original plaintiff. Previously, the house was owned by the father of the plaintiff, who died leaving behind a will. Under that will, he had bequeathed Northern portion of the house to his son Prakash and Southern portion to Manohar, who is the plaintiff. Plaintiff, who is a medical practitioner, is a senior citizen aged about 75 years at present and his wife is also aged about 63 years. Southern portion of the house, which has come to his share consists of ground floor, first, second and third floor. Ground :2: floor is in occupation of defendant. First floor is in occupation of Mr.Gupta and the second floor is in occupation of Mr.Bora. All these tenants are in occupation for a long time since lifetime of the father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, on third floor, there are only two rooms. The said rooms are neither sufficient nor convenient for the purpose of residence of the plaintiff and his wife, who are old persons suffering from different ailments. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the defendant from the ground floor, which the plaintiff needs reasonably and bonafide for his own occupation. Defendant challenges requirement and also the title of the plaintiff on the basis of will. Both the Courts below came to conclusion that the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide requires the suit premises for his self occupation because he has no convenient place to reside and also that it is not convenient for them to stay in two rooms situated on the third floor. With these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner, I do not find any material on record to show that the judgments rendered by the Courts below are perverse or against the facts and evidence on record against the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff had also filed :3: suit for eviction against his tenant Gupta, who is in occupation of the first floor but admittedly that suit has been dismissed. Merely because the suit against Mr.Gupta has been dismissed, it can not be held that the requirement of the plaintiff for the ground floor is also not bonafide and reasonable. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, I find no substance in the petition, therefore, writ petition stands dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request that the petitioner may be given time of three years to vacate the premises because of his difficulties. This request is not acceptable to the plaintiff/respondent. Request appears to be absolutely unreasonable and the same is rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)