IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.200 OF 2006 Smt.Sharayu Manik Jogalekar .. Applicant versus Smt.Anupama Upasani .. Respondent ... Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for the applicant. Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 20th November 200 DATED : 20th November 200 DATED : 20th November 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision by the revision applicant landlord is directed against an order concurrently passed by the lower appellate court conforming order of the trial court granting partial possession to the applicant 3. The only ground of which possession has been granted is reasonable and bonafide requirement. It is alleged by the applicant that she is old and therefore the premises on the upper floor which are already in her possession are not suitable and she needs premises in possession of the respondent on the ground floor. 4. Considering the age of the applicant and her requirement, the trial court as well as the first appellate court have passed a partial decree for possession of one out of the two rooms in possession of the respondent. Both the courts below have held that granting full decree would cause greater hardship to the respondent. The courts below have therefore balanced the hardship and granted possession of one room. The finding recorded by the two courts below that greater hardship to the respondent by passing a full decree is a finding of fact which cannot be said to be in any manner perverse. 5. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision application which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (D.G. KARNIK, J) (D.G. KARNIK, J)