1 CRA 1118 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1118 OF 2010 Shashikant Dattatray Pingale ...Applicant (Org. Defendant) Vs. Smt.Lilabai Tukaram Jadhav and Anr. ...Respondents (Org. Plaintiff) ----- Mr.Vikas Shivarkar for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 16th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The Applicant is the Original Defendant-Tenant. The Respondent herein filed the suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, secondly on the ground of bonafide requirement and thirdly, on the ground of non-user of the premises for more than six months. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of non- user and also on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Applicant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order. The Respondent-landlord did not 2 CRA 1118 of 2010 press the ground of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent before the Lower Appellate Court. The appeal, however, was dismissed and the order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Respondent-landlord had entered into an agreement with a developer in the year 2004 and, thereafter, had filed a suit. He submitted that the landlord ought to have filed the suit under section 16(1) (i). However, he had malafidely filed the suit on the ground of bonafide requirement, since for the purpose of filing a suit under section 16(1) (I), the landlord has to give an undertaking as provided under section 16(2) (d)(i). It was submitted that, therefore, there was no bonafide requirement as alleged by the landlord did not exist. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, out of the 7 tenants of the landlord, 4 tenants had vacated the premises. It was submitted that in the suit an averment was made that the Plaintiff required the suit premises on account of the requirement of his two grandsons who are to get married. It was submitted that after four tenants vacated the premises, one of the grandsons got married and he occupied one of the premises which 3 CRA 1118 of 2010 became available to the landlord. It was submitted that this aspect was not considered by both the Courts below. It was submitted that so far as the question of hardship is concerned, greater hardship would be caused to the Applicant. It was then submitted that so far as non-user is concerned, the Trial Court is relied on the electricity bill which was produced by the landlord. He submitted that during the relevant period the Applicant was taking treatment at naturopathy clinic near Pune and, therefore, electricity meter did not show any consumption of electricity. It was further submitted that the alternate accommodation which he had acquired was in fact acquired by his wife and not by him. 4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Applicant did not step into the witness box to lead evidence and to prove that he was not using the premises for short time on account of his health problem. Both the Courts below have given cogent reasons while recorded the finding on the ground of bonafide requirement as well as on the ground of non- use. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the 4 CRA 1118 of 2010 judgment and order passed by both the Courts below. The Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the execution of the decree be stayed for a period of two months in order to enable to him to challenge this order. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the execution decree is stayed for a period of two months from today. Civil Revision Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)