: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation .. Applicants V/s. Hiraji Jayant Dhanwatey .. Respondent Mr. G.S. Hegde and Mr. C.M. Lokesh i/b. M/s. G.S. Hegde & Associates for the Applicants. Mr. D.A. Joseph for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, on 29th November, 2006, by which the R.A.E. Suit No.1084/1828 of 2000 filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed. The applicants-defendants had filed an Appeal under the Rent Act. However, that Appeal was dismissed for default. Thereafter, a Miscellaneous Civil Application was moved by the applicants. That application was rejected and, therefore, a Civil Revision Application No.396 of 2008 was filed in : 2 : this Court. That application has been dismissed by this Court on 12th August, 2008. Therefore, the applicants are now challenging the decree which has been confirmed in the Appeal filed by it. 2. The decree has already been executed and the possession of the suit premises has already been taken over by the respondent-plaintiff. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that in spite of this the present Civil Revision Application should be entertained as the applicants can always seek restitution of the property in case they succeed. 4. It is submitted that the trial Court has erred in concluding that the landlord required the property. It is also further submitted that there was no document on record to indicate that the respondent-plaintiff was a co-owner and it was only in his evidence that a document was produced indicating that the suit property had been gifted to the respondent-plaintiff by his grand mother. It : 3 : is further submitted that the grand mother had already obtained another flat by filing a Suit against one of the tenants and, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to any other flat in view of the fact that he was claiming through his grand mother. It is also submitted that the respondent-plaintiff was residing in Pune and, therefore, he did not have any need for the premises. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondent points out that in view of the fact that the decree has already been executed, the present Civil Revision Application should not be entertained. He further submits that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed against the order passed by the Appellate Court refusing to restore the Appeal which had been dismissed for default. He further submits that the decree has merged in the Appellate Court’s order and, therefore, once the Civil Revision Application against the Appellate Court’s order has been dismissed, the question of : 4 : entertaining another Civil Revision Application challenging the same order does not arise. 6. There is no material before me to indicate that in the earlier Civil Revision Application the applicant had also challenged the decree. It appears from the present Civil Revision Application that what was challenged was only the refusal by the Appellate Court to condone the delay in filing an application for restoration. Therefore, I am proceeding on the footing that the main order passed in the Appeal which was dismissed for default has not been challenged in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Anr., reported in 2005 (1) Supreme 102. 7. In my opinion, the applicant has not made out any case for interference with the decree passed by the trial Court. The trial Court, on evidence led before it, has found that the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises which were required by him bonafide for himself and the members of his : 5 : family. The trial Court has also found that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if the decree was refused. All the issues raised by the applicant have been considered and, in my opinion, rightly by the trial Court. There is, therefore, no need to interfere with the decree passed and which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court in view of the Appeal being dismissed for default. Apart from this, the decree has already been executed and possession of the suit premises has been handed over to the respondent. 8. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. .......