ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This revision petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2003 for eviction passed by the appellate bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 737 of200l.

3. The respondents are the trustees of Shripant Bhavan Charity Trust (for short 'the trust') and are the owners and landlords of the building known as Shripant Bhavan.One Mr. Manek Mistry was a tenant occupying one room, bearing room No.4, in Block No. 4A (for short 'the suit premises') situated in the said building. Manek was a doctor and using the suit premises as a consulting room. He died on 15th November, 1980 leaving behind him a widow Mehroo and two minor daughters. Mehroo, who was a lawyer, used the suit premises as her office after the death of her husband. Mehroo also died on 26th March, 1993.

4. During the life time of Mehroo the respondents filed a suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 924 of 1990 against Mehroo and her daughter Parizad for possession on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement as well as non user of the suit premises for a period of more than six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit. During the pendency of the suit Mehroo died and her name was deleted from the plaint. Her daughter Parizad, who was the defendant No.2 in the suit however continued to defend the suit. Respondents examined Mr. Mankar one of the trustees of the trust as a witness. Parizad, the revision petitioner, examined herself as a witness. After considering of the evidence adduced before it the trial Court held that the respondents had not proved that they required the suit premises reasonably and bona 'fide for their use. The trial Court also rejected the contention that the suit premises were not used for the purpose for which they were let out for a period of for more than six months immediately preceding the suit. In this view of the matter the trial Court dismissed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the respondents filed an appeal, bearing Appeal No. 737 of 2001, before the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. By its judgment and order dated 18th February, 2003 the appellate bench held that the respondents had proved that they required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the use of the trust. It also held that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents by refusing to pass a decree than to the petitioner by passing the decree. The appellate bench however confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the respondents did not prove non user of the suit premises for the period of six months immediately preceding to the filing of the suit. In this view of the matter the appellate bench allowed the appeal and passed an order of eviction on 18th February, 2003. That judgment is impugned by this revision petition.

6. In the plaint the respondents have pleaded that they require the suit premises for the purpose of the trust. Appellate Court has considered the other premises in occupation of the respondent and has come to the conclusion that the respondents require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the purposes of the trust. The respondents are in possession of only one room admeasuring 75 sq. ft. in the suit building. This finding is not shown to be in any way perverse and requires no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Considering the fact that the trust would be required to maintain the records and would require some premises for office, the finding recorded by the appellate bench that the trust requires the suit premises for the purpose of office is a plausible finding of the fact and not in any way perverse.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner however submitted that the trust is in possession of some premises at Worli and therefore trust does not require the suit premises. The premises at Worli are in possession of Sumatibai Dhanvate since the year 1989. Civil as well as criminal proceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document