(CRA 506 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.506 OF 2011 Smt.Krishna Ramesh Arora ...Petitioner Vs. Swapan Ramesh Dalal ...Respondent ----- Mr.P.S. Dani i/b. Mr.Pravin N. Shah for Petitioner Ms. Zenobia S. Irani i/b. Mr. Mehboob Virjee for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 13th July, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is the original plaintiff and the Respondent is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlord against the defendant-tenant for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. A writ of summons was issued. Two attempts were made to serve the Respondent-tenant. However, the premises were found to be locked. Thereafter, an application for substituted service was filed by the plaintiff and it was granted and the summons was pasted on the suit premises. An ex-parte order was, thereafter, passed and the said decree was executed. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Respondent-tenant for setting aside the (CRA 506 of 2011) ex-parte decree. The Trial Court allowed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and also directed the Plaintiff to restore the possession. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the Plaintiff before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the said order. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent-tenant has, in his correspondence, given the same address as that of the suit premises. My attention was invited to the said letters, where it has been shown that the address of the tenant is that of the suit premises. It is submitted that attempt was made on two occasions by the Bailiff and only, thereafter, an order for substituted service was passed and, accordingly, the ex-parte decree was passed. It was submitted that, therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have set aside the ex-parte order. Secondly, it was submitted that in any case, the order of restitution of possession ought not to have been passed by the Trial Court. It was submitted that the Bailiff’s report clearly indicates that when the decree was executed, there were some old files in the suit premises and it was, therefore, obvious that the tenant was not using the said premises since he was residing in the alternate premises which are acquired by the tenant. It was submitted that, therefore (CRA 506 of 2011) it was not necessary that in each and every cases where ex-parte order was set aside, an order of restitution should be followed. It was submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on the ground of bonafide requirement and the case of the plaintiff is that no hardship would be caused to the tenant since he is residing in the alternate premises. 4. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons while coming to the conclusion that the application for substituted service was not filed before taking adequate steps for serving the tenant and has observed that the Petitioner was very well aware about the fact that the tenant was residing elsewhere and in spite of that after he was unable to serve the tenant at the suit premises, he ought to have served him at the alternate premises which were acquired by the Respondent-Defendant. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons while allowing the application of the tenant and this order has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Once an ex-parte decree has been set aside, then, as a result and the consequence thereof, the possession of the tenant has to be restored, particularly, in view of the observations made by both the Courts below. There is, therefore, no (CRA 506 of 2011) merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5. However, since the suit filed by the plaintiff is on the ground of bonafide requirement, it would be appropriate if the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously within a period of six months. Writ petition is dismissed. Two weeks’ time is given to the Petitioner to restore the possession. (V.M. KANADE J.)