35-cra-127-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2019 M/s. Kumar Brothers, its Proprietor, Shri Narayandas T Kataria(since deceased) through Lrs … Applicants vs. Shri Umesh Manohar Joshi … Respondent Mr. Kishor K. Malpathak for Applicants CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21st AUGUST 2026 ORDER: 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendant to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees for eviction on the ground of non-user of the premises. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the plaintiff has himself averred in the plaint that the suit premises are in a dilapidated condition. It is also recorded that the landlord has stopped carrying out business in the building as it is in a dilapidated condition. Learned counsel for the applicants therefore submits that when there is a reasonable cause for non-user; there cannot be a decree under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Rent Act’). He submits that Page no. 1 of 3 varsha 35-cra-127-2019.doc even though the defendant has raised the defence that due to his ill- health, the business was not carried out, he has contended that he is using the suit premises. However, only the defence would not be material, and if the records show that the suit is in a dilapidated condition, the decree on the ground of non-user would not be sustainable. Hence, the impugned judgments and decrees would warrant an interference by this court. 3. The arguments raised on behalf of the applicants that the premises being in dilapidated condition and the defence raised by the applicants is exhaustively dealt by both the courts. It is held that the plaintiff alleged that till December 1989, the defendant was carrying out business in the suit premises; however, since January 1990, the premises has been completely kept closed. The defence of the defendant’s illness for not carrying out business is also considered by both the courts. The documentary evidence produced on record shows that there was no electricity connection as it was not being used. The admissions given by the defendant during his cross-examination are also considered by both the courts in accepting the allegations that the premises have been kept closed since January 1990. 4. From the record it appears that there is no dispute that the Page no. 2 of 3 35-cra-127-2019.doc premises have been kept closed. The ground of illness raised by the defendant is not supported by any satisfactory evidence as a valid reason for keeping the premises closed. Both the courts therefore held that there was sufficient evidence on record that the premises have been kept closed for no valid reason. It is not the defence raised by the defendant that because the premises was in a dilapidated condition, he was unable to carry out business in the suit premises. The defence is raised regarding his illness for not carrying out business in the suit premises which is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. Hence, both the courts have concurrently held that the premises were kept closed without any reasonable cause. In view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts, the impugned judgments and decrees would not warrant any interference by this court. 5. I do not find any jurisdictional or any manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments and orders to exercise power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. 6. The civil revision application is devoid of any merits. Hence, the civil revision application is dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3