: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.556 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.J. Pawar for the Petitioners. Mr.Jaydeep Deo for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. I do not see any justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of both the Courts upholding the Respondent’s case of bona-fide requirement. It cannot seriously be doubted that the Respondent had established the case of bona-fide requirement of the premises for his son. It was however submitted that the ground which was introduced did not disclose the fact that the Respondent’s son was in : 2 : possession of two other premises. It was therefore submitted that the suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground of non-disclosure of the relevant fact. 2. As observed by the lower Appellate Court, the Respondent was in possession of five units of which one is the suit unit, two are in possession of other tenants and two are in possession of the Respondent. The Respondent himself carries on business from the said two units. He permits his son to occupy a portion of these two units. Understandably this is not a satisfactory arrangement. In the circumstances, I do not consider the Respondents being guilty of any suppression of facts warranting a dismissal of the suit on that ground. 3. Nor would I interfere with the finding of comparative hardship. The lower Courts have found that Defendant No.2 did not produce any evidence to establish any right in regard to the suit property. Defendant No.1 in fact denied : 3 : any right of Defendant No.2 therein. Defendant No.1 had proposed entering into a partnership with a third party for starting the business of medicine in the suit shop. This has been considered to be a indication of his not being interested in carrying on business from the suit premises himself. I see no reason to interfere with this finding of fact based upon an appreciation of the evidence. 4. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Time to vacate is extended upto 31.12.2008 subject to the Petitioner filing the usual undertaking within four weeks from today in this Court including that in the event of the Petitioner not succeeding before the Supreme Court, she will comply with the decree including by handing over possession of the premises.