: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.531 OF 2008 Smt.Mary Arouze, since deceased . through heirs ....Petitioners V/s. Smt.Gulabbai Vasant Hirve & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Mr.Siddharth Ronghe for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Revision Application challenges the order of the lower Appellate Court confirming the decree passed by the trial Court directing the Petitioners to deliver possession of the suit premises to Respondent No.1. 2. The suit premises comprise of two rooms each admeasuring about 225 sq.ft. located in the Pune Cantonment area. The suit was decreed on the ground contained in Section 13(i)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. : 2 : During the pendency of the Appeal before the lower Appellate Court, the original Appellant expired. The present Petitioner No.1 is the married daughter of the original Appellant. Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of Petitioner No.1. Upon the death of the original Appellant before the lower Appellate Court, the Petitioners were impleaded in her place. 3. The Respondents reside in the tenanted premises admeasuring about 200 sq.ft. There is also a loft in the said premises. Three families of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 comprising of eighteen members reside therein. The suit was instituted by Respondent No.1. I will proceed on the basis that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the co-owners of the suit premises. Respondent No.1 filed the suit on the basis that the suit premises were required by Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the members of their family. 4. It has been held that the tenants had paid the rent to Respondent No.1. It appears that there are disputes between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has in fact supported the tenants’ case. Even assuming that the Respondents are the co-owners of the premises, there is no dispute that Respondent No.1 had instituted the suit as a : 3 : co-owner. I see no reason to interfere with the finding in this regard. Nor do I see any reason to interfere with the finding that the rent was in fact being paid to Respondent No.1. The Courts below have analysed the evidence in this regard. There is nothing to suggest that the finding is perverse. 5. I hasten to clarify however that I confirm the finding in this regard between the Petitioners on the one hand and Respondent No.1 on the other. Respondent No.3 has not challenged these findings by filing a separate proceeding himself. If he does so, that would be another matter and the rights between the Respondents inter-se may well be affected. 6. Even assuming that Respondent No.3 did not express his desire to occupy the suit premises for himself, it would make no difference to the first Respondent’s case. Considering the fact that she is a owner or atleast a co-owner of the suit premises and considering the paucity of accommodation presently occupied by the Respondents, there is little doubt that the requirement even of Respondent No.1 is bona-fide. 7. The mere fact that the first Respondent’s son is divorced would not militate against the claim of : 4 : bona-fide requirement. For instance, there is no reason to presume that he will not get married again. Even otherwise considering the extent of paucity of accommodation, this in fact would not affect the first Respondent’s case in any event. Even the need for herself would be bona-fide. The impugned judgment has analysed this aspect in greater detail and I find no reason to interfere with the finding in this regard. 8. Nor do I find any reason to interfere with the finding on the question of comparative hardship. Petitioner No.1 is married. Her husband admittedly resides in the said city. Petitioner No.1 was residing with her husband after her marriage. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that they came to reside in the suit premises due to the differences and disputes between Petitioner No.1 and her husband. 9. Apart from the fact that this contention does not appear to have been taken in the written statement, it has not been established by adducing satisfactory evidence either. Admittedly Petitioner No.1 has not divorced her husband. There are no details of the nature of the disputes. I see no reason to interfere with the manner in which the lower Appellate Court has analysed the evidence and rejected the contention and come to the conclusion that the : 5 : Petitioners came into the said premises at the highest only to look after the original Appellant namely the mother of Petitioner No.1. 10. It was contended that Respondent No.1 had available two other premises. 11. An application for allotment in a society namely Community Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was made by the first Respondent’s son. By a letter dated 24.8.2007, the first Respondent’s son was apparently made a member of the said society which entitled him to a tenement admeasuring about 500 s.ft. The first Respondent’s son sold his right to allotment to a third party. 12. This however, would make no difference. Firstly, it is the first Respondent’s son who was made a member and was eligible to be allotted a tenement. There is nothing however to indicate that he was in fact allotted and handed over possession of the said tenement. If he sold this entitlement for his financial requirements, it would not affect the first Respondent’s case. 13. Mr.Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 tendered a letter dated : 6 : 22.2.2008 by which the said society clarified that the first Respondent’s son was only eligible to get a tenement allotted to him but that he was in fact not allotted any tenement as he had sold his membership rights itself to a third party. I however, have not permitted him to refer to this letter which was not filed before the lower Appellate Court as it was unnecessary in view of the above finding. 14. It was further submitted that Respondent No.1 had acquired a flat in the block of Housing Development Corporation but had sold the same. 15. Even assuming that is so, the lower Appellate Court found that it would not affect the first Respondent’s case as it was situated at a distance of 25 k.m. and therefore, could not be considered to be a suitable alternate premises, to the suit premises. Respondent No.1 is 81 years old. There is no reason why she should be put to such hardship. 16. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The time to vacate the premises is however extended upto 30.4.2009 subject to the Petitioners filing in this Court the usual undertaking on or before 31.12.2008. Possession shall be handed over to Respondent No.1 subject to any : 7 : orders that may be passed in any proceedings adopted by Respondent Nos.2 and/No.3.