5-cra-598-2013-cac-357-2015.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015 Smt. Lata Pandurang Patankar … Applicant vs. Shri Mustaq Indulkan Agwan … Respondent Mr. Sandesh Deshpande a/w. Ms. Priti Karande for the Applicant Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21st AUGUST 2026 ORDER: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015 1. This application is for bringing on record the proposed respondents in place of deceased sole respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay if any is condoned. 2. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c). 3. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks from today. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2013 4. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendant to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees granting Page no. 1 of 3 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.08.21 18:43:37 +0530 5-cra-598-2013-cac-357-2015.doc eviction decree on the ground of bonafide requirement. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree on the ground of bonafide requirement for starting the business for his son. The particulars of the family members and the existing business is brought on record by the plaintiff to support his submission that the premises are bonafide required for starting business for his son. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the courts have erroneously shifted the burden on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff’s son is already carrying out his own business and has settled down. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the burden cannot be shifted upon the defendant to prove that the plaintiff’s son is carrying on his own business and it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove the bonafide requirement. He therefore submits that the impugned judgments and decrees would warrant an interference by this court. 6. I have perused the papers of the civil revision application. The plaintiff has contended that he has four sons and two wives and that his sons are unemployed. The particulars regarding one of the married son dependent upon the plaintiff is also pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he requires the suit premises for setting up an independent business for his son, Page no. 2 of 3 5-cra-598-2013-cac-357-2015.doc Hamid to carry out grocery business. The plaintiff’s evidence with regard to the bonafide requirement for the purpose of starting business is accepted by both the courts. 7. The reference by the trial court that the defendant failed to prove that the Hamid was carrying on his own independent business is with reference to the written statement of the defendant that Hamid is already carrying out his independent business. No evidence led by the defendant is not the only ground to pass a decree for eviction. The substantive pleadings and the supporting evidence regarding the bonafide requirement for setting up an independent business for his son is concurrently accepted by both the courts. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments warranting any interference. 8. There is no jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments warranting any interference in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 9. The civil revision application is devoid of any merit. 10. The civil revision application is dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3