IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6043 OF 2006. PETITION NO. 6043 OF 2006. PETITION NO. 6043 OF 2006. Shri Anil Babubhai Engineer. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Chandrashekhar Ganpat Aru. ... Respondent. P.J.Das for the petitioner. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 12th September 2006. DATED: 12th September 2006. DATED: 12th September 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The grounds taken in the petition are of total denial so far as carrying of business in the suit premises is concerned. However, the evidence available on record shows that the petitioner is carrying on business of transport from the said premises. The address of the suit premises is shown as commercial address which shows factum of carrying business from the suit premises. In view of this evidence, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that there is a change in the user of the suit premises cannot be faulted. 3. Sufficiency of evidence cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction of this Court since this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over rent Courts. This Court not being a Court of appeal, is not expected to reappreciate the evidence in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & anr. Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & anr. Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & anr. vs. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC vs. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC vs. Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576, 576, 576, (para 9), wherein following observations were made: . " Before parting with this judgment, we would like to say that the High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Act is a special legislation governing landlord-tenant relationship and disputes. The legislature has, in its wisdom, not provided second appeal or revision to the High Court. The object is to give finality to the decision of the appellate authority. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes." 4. Bearing in mind the above observations of the Apex Court and considering the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, it is very difficult to reach to the conclusion that the impugned order is a perverse order. Cogent reasons are given by the lower appellate Court while confirming the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court on each and every issue raised in the appeal. The lower appellate Court appreciated oral evidence and recorded findings of fact and affirmed the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court. No case is made out either in the petition or during the course of hearing to demonstrate that any piece of evidence was not taken into account by the Courts below or that any piece of evidence was misconstrued by the lower appellate Court. 5. In view of availability of material on record and concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)