1 cra365.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.365 OF 2010 Parutyya Gurupadayya Mathapati ...Applicant vs. Suryakant Dhondiba Patange & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Surel Shah for the applicant Mr.Nitin Mulye for the respondent nos.1 to 4 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The applicant is the original defendant-tenant in a suit for eviction filed by the respondents. The applicant is in possession of the two rooms for residential use. A suit was filed by the respondents on the ground that the applicant was a defaulter. The main ground pleaded was of bona fide requirement. The trial court accepted the ground of bona fide requirement and held the issue of comparative hardship against the applicant. An appeal was preferred by the applicant in the District Court which has been dismissed. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that bona fide need was not established by the respondents and even the finding on the ground of comparative hardship is completely erroneous. 3 As far as bona fide requirement is concerned, the 2 cra365.sxw Courts below have found that the respondents have been residing in different tenanted premises from time to time. It must be stated here that the trial Court has considered the need pleaded by the respondents in detail. Even the Appellate court has adverted to the evidence on record. The concurrent finding of fact is that the respondents have been residing in the rented premises consisting of two rooms. The first respondent entered the witness box who stated that his family consists of he himself, his wife, two daughters and a son. One daughter was in the employment but was also continuing her education. Other two children were taking education. The suit is filed in the year 1998 on the ground of bona fide need. Considering the fact that the respondents- landlords are occupying two rooms on rental basis, bona fide need has been rightly held as established. 4 As far as comparative hardship is concerned, the applicant admitted that he was holding a plot admeasuring 2000 sq.ft and was residing on a structure thereon. The finding of fact is that the applicant admitted that he was holding one more plot. 5 There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE