: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 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2008 Rajendra P. Tone ...Applicant. v. Mohamad Yasin Moinuddin Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Yogesh Mankapure , adv. for the Applicant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th March, 2008. DATE: 4th March, 2008. DATE: 4th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision applicant, who is original defendant. 2. To state in brief, the respondents, who are the original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 2002 for eviction and possession and for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant, who is present revision applicant. According to the plaintiffs, they were previously living in rented premises and as their landlord had asked them to vacate the premises, they purchased the suit premises from the owner on 22-2-2001 for self occupation. The defendant was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant. On 21-3-2001 plaintiffs issued notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy with effect from 30th April, 2001 on the ground that they reasonably and bonafide require the suit premises for their self-occupation. :2: After expiry of the notice period, plaintiffs filed suit for eviction and possession. The suit summon was served on the defendants and he also appeared on 3-7-2002 and sought adjournment to file written statement. Thereafter, from time to time, adjournments were taken for filing written statements but the defendant failed to file written statement and on 26-11-2002 the Court passed an order to proceed without the written statement. Plaintiffs filed affidavit on 27-1-2004 and the suit came to be decreed on 11-3-2005. 3. Against that judgment and decree, the defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.128 of 2007. The appellate Court dismissed that appeal by the impugned judgment observing that the the defendant had not given any reasons for not filing the written statement in spite of having taken number of opportunities and thus, he had not come before the Court with any valid defence. The learned trial Court had noted that as per the pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendant is in service of Municipal Corporation and is having house property near Hundred Feet Road and infact, he does not require the suit premises but just to retain possession of the suit premises at a nominal rent, he was not handing over the possession to the plaintiffs. They also averred in affidavit that they reasonably and bonafide require the suit premises for their self-occpation because they themselves were living in :3: the tenanted premises and their landlord had issued notice to them to vacate the premises. In such circumstances, they had purchased the suit property for their self-occupation. 4. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that plaintiffs reasonably and bonafide require the suit premises for their self-occupation. In view of the fact that the defendant is in service of Municipal Corporation and as he is having house property, no hardship is likely to be caused to him, if decree is passed. In view of the above circumstances, I do not see any illegality, irregularity or error in the impugned decree and the judgments. 5. In the result, Revision Application stands dismissed. 6. At this stage the learned counsel for the Revision Applicant/defendant seeks eight weeks time to vacate the premises. Subject to defendant/revision applicant filing undertaking before this Court within two weeks that he would vacate the premises and shall put the plaintiffs in peaceful possession without any objection or obstruction within a period of eight weeks from this day, the execution of decree shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from this day. In case, the defendant fails to file undertaking within :4: stipulated period, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to execute the decree at any time. 7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)