1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.392 OF 2007 Maharashtra Bone Mills ...Applicant. v. Shivchand M. Lalwani ...Respondents. Mr.A.G.Damle,adv. For the Applicant. Ms.Sunanda R. Kumbhat, adv. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Respondent/landlord filed regular civil suit no.47/85 for eviction and possession of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirements. According to him, he and his mother were living jointly. However, because of the disputes between his mother and wife , it had become difficult for them to live together peacefully. Therefore, he required premises for self occupation. The decree for eviction was claimed on some other grounds also. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the landlord preferred regular civil appeal no.111 of 2000 before the District Court at Malegaon. After hearing the parties, appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed the decree in favour of the landlord on the 2 ground of bonafide requirements. That judgment has been challenged i the present Revision Application. 3 The learned appellate Court considered the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence placed on record. He noted that plaintiff had clearly pleaded reasons as set out above for bonafide requirement of the premises. He rejected the contention that sufficient particulars were not given in the plaint to make out case of bonafide requirement. It was contended on behalf of the respondent/defendant that he had several other properties in the town and the defendant also produced list of those properties. However, the said record reveals that all those properties were standing in the name of his other brothers. No document was produced to show if any of the other properties were in his actual possession .It was further contended that during the pendency of the appeal during the year 2007 as a result of some compromise decree in the suit , he had taken possession of certain premises. The First Appellate Court noted that no details were produced as to where that property was situated. Whether that property is residential or commercial and whether that was suitable for the residential purpose for the plaintiff and his family. After going through the reasons given by the appellate Court while allowing the appeal and granting decree for eviction and 3 possession on the ground of bonafide requirements, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said judgment. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present revision application. 4 In the result, revision application stands dismissed. As the revision application itself is disposed off, civil application no.392/07 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)