FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This revision application has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2007 in R.C.S.No.127 of 2001 passed by 2nd Joint C.J.J.D., Hingoli and the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2010 in R.C.A. No.20 of 2007. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court that the evidence of the plaintiff shows that the son of the plaintiff is practicing as Income Tax adviser is without any basis and the same is perverse. He further submitted that the Courts below did not consider the point of comparative hardship which he would suffer. The learned Counsel also submitted that the suit property is residential premises and the requirement as stated by the plaintiff is for commercial purpose and unless permission from the competent authority is sought, no such residential premises can be converted into commercial premises. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the grounds raised in the revision application. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the petitioner is defaulter is without any basis. 3 I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner. In my opinion, the Courts below have recorded finding of fact that the evidence of the plaintiff shows that son of the plaintiff is practicing as Income Tax adviser and he needs the premises. The finding of fact is also recorded by the appellate Court and according to me, it needs no interference in this revision application. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. It is also observed that the premises were rented before 100 years. The Supreme Court has reminded time and again that it is not for the tenant to dictate what would be the bonafide need of the landlord. The finding of fact son of the plaintiff is practicing as Income Tax Adviser cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. 4 In this view of the matter, civil revision application stands rejected in limine. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 27.10.2010. PLK/*