- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 311 OF 2009 Mrs. Dorka Pradarshan Rao ... Petitioner Appellant/Orig. Deft. No.2 Vs. Mrs. Aminabai Abeda Ali & Anr. ... Respondents Orig. Respondents/Orig. Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2. AND Legal representatives of the Respondent No.3/ deceased Mohanlal Roshan Original Defendant No.1. *** Mr. A. N. Nashikwala, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. counsel i/b Sachin Dhakephalkar, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. *** CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 16, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 landladies filed the suit under Rent Act for eviction against the petitioner and respondent No.3, on the ground of subletting, reasonable and bona fide requirement. Both the Courts below concurrently passed decree of eviction, on the aforementioned grounds. - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pleadings of respondent landladies regarding reasonable and bona fide requirement are very vague. He further submits that petitioner are lawful subtenants in as much as she is in occupation of the suit premises by consent of the respondent landladies. In this regard petitioner relied upon rent receipts at page 57 and submitted that she cannot be termed as an unlawful sub-tenant. 3. I find both the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are without any merit. The petitioner examined herself as DW 1. In paragraph 2 of her cross-examination she has admitted that in the month of February 1999 she paid amount of arrears of rent to the deceased tenant and the deceased tenant paid the said amount to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Even otherwise also the rent receipts at page 57 disclose that amount of Rs.27,680/- was received by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 landlady from deceased tenant. There is no privity of contract between petitioner and the respondent/landladies. Apart from the above rent-receipts, there is no material on record to substantiate the petitioner’s case about lawful sub-tenancy. 4. As far as ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement is concerned, the landladies pleaded that suit premises are required for the son of respondent No.2. The petitioner did not dispute that son of respondent No.2 landlady is not doing any - 3 - business. It is settled principle that landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and therefore, it cannot be said that requirement of the landladies is not bona fide and reasonable. 5. As far as comparative hardship is concerned, both the courts below held in favour of landladies in case of refusal to pass the decree of eviction on the ground that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises. I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the lower Courts. The impugned judgment and decree therefore, cannot be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Revision is therefore, dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one years to vacate the suit premises. Learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has no objection to grant the said time. In view of concession given by the learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner is granted time to vacate the suit premises for one year from today, subject to furnishing the usual undertaking by the petitioner and all adult members of her family, in this Court, within four weeks. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]