(1) agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.492 OF 2008 Dr.Vinay Dhanraj Taleda .. Applicant versus Shobharam Nihalchand Punjabi (since deceased) by legal heirs Ramesh Govind Uthada & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Anurag Jain for the applicant. Mr.Mandar Limaye for respondent No.5. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The challenge in the revision application is to the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the Courts below. The revision application was heard for admission on 29th August 2008. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the order dated 29th August 2008 read thus: “3 Both the Courts below have categorically found that the plaintiff’s two sons are carrying on business of sale of polythene bags in Tulsibaug area on the handcart. Having found that the (2) two sons of the plaintiff are carrying on the said business at a market place on handcart, on account of non-availability of premises, the need has been found to be bonafide and reasonable. The defendant tenant is a doctor by profession and has his dispensary in the tenanted premises. Taking into consideration the comparative hardship and the need of the landlord, a decree for possession has been passed in favour of the land lord. 4 Perused the judgment and order passed by the Court below. The same goes to take a possible view of the matter which does not require any interference. 5 At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises. Hence issue notice to the respondent only touching the question of grant of reasonable time to the applicant to vacate the premises, returnable in six weeks. Till the returnable date, there shall be stay of execution of the decree for possession.” 2 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that this Court has not perused the record and therefore he may be permitted to file compilation of notes of evidence. The said request cannot be acceded to. (3) This Court has already recorded a finding in the aforesaid order that no interference is called for in the impugned judgments and decrees and notice was issued to enable the applicant to pray for grant of reasonable time to vacate. Thereafter, the revision application has remained pending in this Court and benefit of stay has been already enjoyed by the applicant from 29th August 2008. 3 Hence, no case for interference is made out. Revision application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)