1 cra1120 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1120 OF 2010 Rajesh Bhaskar Odhekar & Ors. ...Applicants vs. Arun Vasantrao Pachorkar ...Respondent Mr.Rahul Motkari for the applicant None for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession against the applicants in respect of the suit premises which are residential premises under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999. The Trial Court passed a decree on the ground of non-user. The decree has been confirmed in the appeal. 2 The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is more than enough evidence on record to show that the second applicant continued to occupy the suit premises. He submitted that there were documents produced on record to prove the occupation of the suit premises by the second applicant and mere failure to produce the electricity bills is no ground to disbelieve the case of the applicants. He submitted that the applicants examined witness 2 cra1120 Mr.Anil Pardeshi to prove that the second applicant was residing in the suit premises. He submitted that both the Courts below had erroneously rejected the evidence of said witness though the witness was an independent witness. 3 I have considered the submissions. The finding of fact concurrently recorded by both the Courts below is that the electricity bills were not produced to show the use of the electricity in the suit premises during the relevant period. Admittedly, the 1 st and 3 rd applicants were not using the suit premises during the relevant period. Failure to produce the electricity bills coupled with the fact that the suit premises were found in inhabitable condition are the factors which are considered by both the Courts below to come to the conclusion that the second applicant whose age is admittedly more than 60 years was not residing in the suit premises. 4 There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in this Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Revision Application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE