: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.357 OF 2009 Shri Dilip Rajaram Shrivardhankar ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b S.K. Chaurasia for Applicant Mr.P.N. Shah for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently concluded that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent and that the landlord bonafide required the suit premises. The courts have also found that the landlord would be caused greater hardship if the decree was not to be passed in his favour. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant defendant that the defendant was not in arrears of rent and it was the landlord who had refused to accept the rent from him. It is further submitted that despite tendering rent, the landlord had refused the same and therefore there was no cause of action for filing a suit on the ground of arrears of : 2 : rent. 3. This submission cannot be accepted. On 29.7.1991, the Respondent terminated the appellant’s tenancy on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. The demand for payment of rent at a particular rate was made earlier. Correspondence ensued between the parties. A notice dated 18.4.1991 sent to the tenant indicates that he was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2257.85, calculated on the basis of the permitted increases in rent, the details of which have been mentioned in the letter. The notice also mentions that the amount of Rs.500/- paid by the tenant has been set off against the outstanding amount of arrears and that the balance was Rs.1757.85 as on 18.4.1991 i.e. the date of the notice. 4. In my opinion, therefore, the consideration by the both the Courts below on the issue of arrears of rent cannot be faulted. Both the courts have concluded that even after adjustment of Rs.500/- which according to the applicant was tendered in “advance”, it could not be said that the applicant was not in arrears of rent. 5. The next issue is with regard to the bonafide requirement. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have not considered the comparative hardship nor have they considered that a partial decree can be passed. He submits that it is necessary for the Court to consider whether a partial decree can be passed before evicting the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. Even if this submission is to be accepted the decree has been passed on other grounds as well. The tenant has admitted that he has acquired suitable premises in Kandivali. In these circumstances, both the Courts below cannot be : 3 : faulted for having passed the decree. 6. Hence, the civil revision application is rejected. 7. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of 3 months from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by the appellant and all the adults in the family within two weeks.