JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. In spite of due service of notice on the respondent, the respondent has failed to appear before us for the purpose of contesting the appeal.

3. By the impugned order, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed a review application and modified the decree for possession, which was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord-appellant by the Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision.

4. Feeling aggrieved by this order allowing the application for review, a Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent orders of the Courts below in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. It is not in dispute that the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement was passed in favour of the landlord-appellant by the Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision. It is an admitted fact that an undertaking was filed by the respondent unequivocally binding himself to