IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1559 OF 2003 Smt.Ramalaxmi Rameshchandra Bhate ..... Petitioner V/s. Shri Dilip Krishna Kavade & Ors. .....Respondent Mr.R.S.Datar, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govilkar, for the respondent No.2(a). CORAM : SHRI P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : 21st NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff. She has instituted a suit bearing No.626 of 1998 for declaration/injunction. The case of the petitioner-original plaintiff is that the suit property as described in Para No.1 of the plaint is a godown, the description of the same is given in the plaint. The suit property was taken on rent by a Partnership firm namely Kheraj Nanji & Company in the year 1932 and one Bhanji Nanji was the Managing Partner of the said business. Subsequently, three more partners were added in the year 1957. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of dissolution of the said firm after the death of Managing Partner namely Bhanji Nanji on 15-1-1982, the business was transferred in the name of the husband of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the physical possession of the suit premises remained with her husband and that receipt was also issued by the landlord on 20-10-1984 in the name of the plaintiff. It is her case that after the death of her husband, she has inherited the tenancy rights and the defendant No.1 has illegally and unlawfully transferred the suit premises in the name of defendant No.2. The suit accordingly was filed for declaration of her tenancy rights/status of her tenancy rights. Since construction was made on the suit premises by the defendants, it was prayed that decree for possession may be granted in favour of the plaintiff asking the defendant to handover the possession. 2. The suit was resisted on behalf of the defendants by filing their written statements at Exh.28 & 45. The defendants denied in toto the claim of the plaintiff regarding her tenancy rights. Regarding the receipt of rent, it was contended that it was obtained by way of fraud by the plaintiff and that another suit was filed by defendant No.2 against the original plaintiff for restraining him from obstructing the construction of the premises and injunction was granted by the Trial Court, which was confirmed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.365 of 1985. The same was confirmed upto the High Court. It is the case of the defendants that three storied building has been constructed after taking permission from the appropriate authorities and the possession was given to the occupants. It is the case of defendants that tenancy rights were surrendered by the firm on 12-02- 1985. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right in any manner to claim any such relief. 3. The Trial Judge framed various issues for determination and after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Trial Court held that the suit is not required to be stayed. After appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of tenancy rights and she is also not entitled to get any relief regarding possession. 4. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff by way of appeal before the District Court, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.374 of 1993. The appellate court after considering the evidence on record, has found that the plaintiff has failed to prove any case. It is found that the plaintiff has failed to prove her claim regarding tenancy rights over the suit property. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, both the courts below have properly appreciated the facts and have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case about tenancy rights. The aspect about receipt of notice has also been considered by the courts below. 6. In my view, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record as if it is the court of appeal, when the Trial Court as well as the appellate court have considered the evidence and found that the plaintiff has failed to make out her case about tenancy rights in the suit premises. The said finding cannot be upset by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, in my view, cogent reasons have been given by both the courts below for arriving at a finding of fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any error of jurisdiction or even any error of law in the impugned orders of the trial court and appellate court. I therefore, do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. I do not find any substance in this petition. The petition is dismissed summarily at an admission stage. Notice discharged. No order as to costs. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )