: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.218 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2008 Shantilal S. Bora & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s. Chandanmal R. Sakhla ....Respondent Mr.Ajay S. Deshpande i/b Mr.V.A. Sugdare for the Petitioners. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Nor am I impressed by the question of jurisdiction raised before me. 2. The trial Court passed a decree for eviction against the Petitioners inter-alia on the ground of bona-fide requirement. These findings of fact have been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court, if I may say with respect, by a well reasoned judgment. For instance, it is observed that the Respondent requires : 2 : the suit premises for the purpose of the business carried on by his son. That the Respondent - landlord requires the premises bona-fide for business purposes is clear. The next question is of comparative hardship. The Courts below have decided this question in favour of the Respondent on the basis that the Petitioners have an alternative accommodation comprising of a three story house on the ground floor of which there are four shops. Further in the same locality, the Petitioners also have a godown admeasuring 1260 sq.ft. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the Courts below for deciding the question of comparative hardship in favour of the Respondent. 3. Faced with this, it was contended that the lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. As noted in the impugned judgment, the Respondent - landlord pursued the remedy both under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. As far as the matter under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is concerned, I have already observed that the case of bona-fide requirement has been made out. As far as the matter under the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, the Petitioners have less of a defence. : 3 : However, a technical plea was raised that the trial Court passed a decree under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, whereas the lower Appellate Court passed a decree under the Transfer of Property Act. It is important to note however that both the Courts have dealt with the entire evidence including the evidence which substantiates the Respondent - landlord’s act under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It is also important to note that this is not a case where the Court has no jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of this case to discharge the matter under either of the Acts. On the other hand, both the Courts were entitled to decide the same both under the Transfer of Property Act as well as under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It matters little therefore that the lower Appellate Court may have held that the suit claim is established under the Transfer of Property Act. The decree is one for possession and in the matters relating whether the case is made out one act or other. 4. In the circumstances, both the Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. Time to vacate and hand over possession is extended upto 30.9.2008 subject to the Petitioners filing the usual undertaking within four weeks from today in this Court including that in : 4 : the event of the Petitioners not succeeding before the Supreme Court, they will comply with the decree including by handing over possession of the premises.