1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2010 Mahadev Madhusudan Karmarkar ..Applicant V/s. Daulatram Tirthdas Chandwani ..Respondents & anr. Mr.Shekhar S. Bhise, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Girish R. Agarwal, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP, for the State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned District Judge-3, Thane at Kalyan and the learned Civil Judge , Junior Division, Ulhasnagar holding that the Applicant was liable to be evicted on the ground that the Applicant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and did not pay the rent demanded, as also because the 2 landlord reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for his own use. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. The learned Counsel for the Applicant states that whenever the tenant sought to tender the rent to the landlord, the landlord avoided to receive the rent but could not explain why he did not send the rent by money order. He also cannot explain as to why rent was not deposited within the stipulated period upon receipt of notice of demand. Therefore, on this ground both the Courts below have rightly held that the tenant was liable to be evicted. 3. As far as bona fide need is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the landlord himself did not step into the witness but his wife stepped into the witness box. This was because the landlord's wife stated that the landlord, her 3 husband was deaf and handicap and he would not have properly deposed in the Court as a witness. She was well acquainted with the facts. Therefore, she stepped into the witness box. Since the need set up was of the family and within the knowledge of landlord's wife, she was good witness and was rightly held a good witness by both the Courts below. 4. In view of this, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Application which is dismissed. The decree may not be put to execution for a period of eight weeks subject to Applicant's furnishing usual undertaking. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)