1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.343 OF 2009 Shri Ashok Laxman Wadekar ..Applicant V/s Dr.Jayant P .Narayan Pansare & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Smt.Neha Palshikar Bhide for the applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar for the respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 24.9.2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. This is an application filed by the tenant against concurrent decrees of eviction by two lower Courts. Both the courts on facts have come to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled for decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The trial Court however, dismissed the suit on the ground that there is a mis- joinder of parties. The appeal Court concurred with the trial Court on the question of bonafide requirement but allowed the appeal holding that there was no mis-joinder of parties. On the ground of bonafide requirement, it is seen that it was the case of the plaintiff that he was a retired Air-force officer and during his service tenure, was used to live in larger premises. The present premises is about 500 sq.ft.. He has stated that his daughter was studying and that his mother had shifted in 1990 to his sister’s place at Vile- parle. His contention was that he wanted to look after his mother. In my view, in the revisional jurisdiction it is not permissible to re-appreciate the evidence. There is no error 2 of jurisdiction which is apparent from the record. The Civil Revision Application is therefore, dismissed. However, the record does indicate that the daughter of the plaintiff is presently residing in the United States though she frequently come to India. Advocate for the defendant contended that the defendant has been residing in the premises for several decades. In the circumstances, considering the fact that the property is situated at Shivaji Park, Dadar and it is difficult to immediately secure alternate premises in the city of Mumbai, I am inclined to grant two years time for vacating the premises. Mr.Karlekar for the respondent no.1 states that the landlord has agreed for grant of this time. Advocate for the defendant also states that they are agreeable to file an undertaking that they will vacate after a period of two years. The Advocate for the defendant also states that the defendant and his wife alone are presently residing in the premises and one of his son is residing at Worli and another son is residing abroad. In the circumstances, if the defendant and his wife file an undertaking within two weeks from today that they will not part with possession and/or create third party rights in respect of the suit property or any part thereof, then in such circumstances, by consent, decree will not be executed for a period of two years from today. It is made clear that no further extension for vacating the premises will be granted. Time to vacate is granted on the further condition that compensation of Rs.1500/- per month will be paid to the landlord w.e.f October-2009 till the date when the flat is actually vacated. This amount should be paid on or before the 10th day of each month on which such compensation becomes due. Civil Revision Application stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3