: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.410 OF 2009 Jaideo Atmaram Prabhu ... Applicant V/s. Anant Mangesh Kamat & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sujata Mogre for Applicant Mr.R.R. Arodkar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court since the decree for partial eviction has been passed against him. The applicant tenant occupies two rooms in a chawl. The landlord i.e. the father of the respondents had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. After the death of the landlord, the respondent No.1 who is his son pleaded his requirement for the suit premises. The trial Court has passed a partial decree directing that the defendant should hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the second part ‘portion’ of room No.9 which is used by defendant No.1 as a kitchen room situated on the second floor of the building. 2. The appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the trial Court with regard to the bonafide requirement and comparative hardship. The appellate Court, however, has directed that the applicant shall hand over vacant possession of the first portion of room No.9 admeasuring 15’ X 15’, i.e. the living room instead of second part as : 2 : directed by the trial court. Thus, the room used as kitchen is to be retained by the applicant. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the landlords have various premises in the city and therefore do not require these premises for their own use. It is also submitted that they do not require these premises for their own use. It is also submitted that they do not require the premises bonafide and the applicant who is of 77 years would be put to great difficulties in shifting to only one room. It is further submitted that the landlord therefore does not require the suit premises bonafide. 4. In my opinion, both the Courts below have committed no error by concluding that the landlord has proved his bonafide need for the premises. The Courts below have found concurrently that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the decree is not passed in his favour. Both the Courts have rightly considered the feasibility of a partial decree being passed, as required in law, and have directed that one room should be handed over to the landlord. In these circumstances, I see no reason to differ from the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 5. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicant, he is given three months to shift his belongings from the front room to the rear room on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant to this court within two weeks from today.