19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2019 Mahadeo Bhimrao Wagh (since decased) through Lrs Smt. Indu Subhash Patil and Ors … Applicants vs. Haider Ali Sultan(since deceased) through Lrs Nisarali Haiderali and Ors … Respondents. Mr. Chandrakant Chavan a/w. Mr. Ashfaque Dasulkar for Applicants. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. This civil revision application is preferred by two of the legal heirs of the original defendant. Though five of the heirs have been shown as the revision applicants, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed his Vakalatnama only for applicants nos. 1 and 2. It is shocking that, without a Vakalatnama for all, the applicants are shown as revision applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks to justify the filing of the revision application on behalf of the five parties Page no. 1 of 8 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.09.28 10:52:19 +0530 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc with a Vakalatnama only for two of the applicants by submitting that in the appeal court all the applicants were shown as appellants and two of them were also arrayed as respondents; hence, he has continued with the same title. 2. I have perused the papers of the application. Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 are also shown as applicant nos. 3 and 5. As to applicant no. 4, he is shown as deceased. The title of the civil revision application gives an impression that the revision application is filed on behalf of all five applicants who are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It is clarified that this civil revision application is filed only on behalf of two of the heirs, i.e. applicant nos. 1 and 2. The remaining two heirs of the defendant have not challenged the decree of eviction. 3. Both the courts have concurrently passed a decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord and non-user by the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the landlord has not come with clean hands and has not pleaded Page no. 2 of 8 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc the availability of premises with the landlord. He relies upon the relevant averments in the plaint and the written statement. He further submits that there is no specific pleading as to whether the premises were required for commercial use or residential use. The suit premises is commercial. Hence, the findings recorded regarding the landlord’s large family for residence could not be considered by the court as a bona fide requirement for seeking eviction. So far as the ground of hardship is concerned, he submits that the landlord has sufficient premises available. However, the defendant had no premises except the suit premises. Hence, the issue of hardship is also wrongly decided in favour of the landlord. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the findings recorded on the ground of non-user lack supporting evidence and are not based on the evidence produced by the defendant. He submits that on 31st July 2001, the landlord granted permission to the defendant to carry out repairs. He submits that the landlord's permission itself shows that the defendant was in actual use of the suit premises. He also relies upon the electricity bills to show that the premises Page no. 3 of 8 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc were in use. He submits that the defendant has examined an officer from the electricity department to prove that the electricity connection and the bills were raised for use in the suit premises. Learned counsel for the applicants therefore submits that the decree on both grounds would not be sustainable, and the impugned judgment and decree would warrant interference by this Court. 6. I have perused the papers of the civil revision application. The plaintiff has pleaded personal bonafide requirement on the ground of the large family of the plaintiff. Nothing is on record to show that the suit premises are commercial premises, and the pleadings show that they were used for commercial purposes. The plaintiff has pleaded that his family consisted of seven sons, three of whom were married, and that one son had two minor sons and one daughter. The other son was also married and had one son. The third son was also married and had two daughters. The plaintiff has further pleaded that his four unmarried sons and three married sons, along with their wives and children, were residing with the plaintiff in the premises available to them, as described in paragraph no. 1 of the plaint. Page no. 4 of 8 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc 7. The plaintiff has pleaded that, on the land owned by him, he constructed a C.C.I sheet structure admeasuring about 1300 square feet, which was partitioned into two identical parts admeasuring 650 square feet. The defendant occupied an area of 650 square feet on the eastern side, where he was carrying out the business of manufacturing wooden boxes. The plaintiff has further pleaded that he and his family were residing in three rooms each admeasuring 10’ x 20” square feet and three rooms as described in paragraph no. 5 of the plaint. The plaintiff therefore contended that considering the large family of around 17 members, he required the suit premises for their personal use. The plaintiff has thus pleaded that the premises available to him were grossly inadequate for his large family and that he therefore required the suit premises. 8. The defendant pleaded that other premises were available to the plaintiff; however, nothing on record shows that the premises were sufficient for a large family of 17 members. Both courts thus considered the plaintiff's requirement and accepted the plaintiff’s plea that the suit premises were required for the bona fide use of the plaintiff. During the Page no. 5 of 8 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc pendency of the suit, two more members were added to the family, in view of the birth of two grandsons during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal court has therefore confirmed the trial court’s findings on the ground of the plaintiff's personal bona fide requirement. 9. So far as hardship is concerned, the defendant has not pleaded and proved that he made any attempt to acquire any suitable premises and was not successful in obtaining any suitable premises after the suit was filed. It is a well-established legal principle that, to seek the benefit of hardship, the defendant must plead and prove that he attempted to acquire suitable premises and was unsuccessful. In the absence of any such pleading and supporting evidence, both courts have rightly held that the hardship would be caused to the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff's large family. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded on the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. 10. So far as non-user is concerned, both courts considered the oral and documentary evidence exhaustively. It is held that Page no. 6 of 8 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc the evidence did not show that the premises was being used. Considering the evidence on record, both courts recorded the finding of fact that the premises were covered with dust and the door had not been opened for years, as pleaded by the plaintiff. The defendant's certificate of registration of shop, challans and rent receipts and the oral evidence were discussed by both the courts and it was held that the statement of electricity bill produced on record in respect of consumption of electricity itself showed that there was not enough consumption of electricity for running and manufacturing wooden boxes, which would show that the premises were not used. The certificate under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 was valid for only six months, which the defendant admitted in cross-examination. Hence, the non-renewal of the certificate was considered an important aspect in concluding that the premises were not being used. Thus, both courts disbelieved the oral and documentary evidence produced by the defendant and held that, during the relevant period between March 2001 and September 2001, the premises were not being used for the purpose for which it was let out. In view of the concurrent Page no. 7 of 8 19-cra-41-2019-2.9.2026.doc findings of fact recorded based on the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the impugned judgments and decrees granted on the ground of bonafide requirement and non-user would not warrant any interference by this court. 11. I do not find any jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded by both the courts warranting any interference in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 12. The Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed. The pending civil application is disposed of as infructuous. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 8 of 8