dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4324 OF 1997 PETITION NO.4324 OF 1997 PETITION NO.4324 OF 1997 M/s.Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Smt.Chandran Relumal Hirani Respondent. None for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th November, 2008. : 11th November, 2008. : 11th November, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: None for the petitioner, though served. None appears for the respondent also. 2. Both the Courts, after considering the material available on record, including the evidence led by the parties concurrently held that the landlord has made out a case that the defendant is not using the suit premises for the purposes for which it was let out for a period of four months immediately preceding the filing of the Suit and, therefore, entitled to possession of the suit property. 3. This finding need no interference. There is no perversity in the matter and neither there was anyone ( 2 ) to point out the same. After perusal the grounds as raised, I see that the reasoning so given by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse as it is based upon the evidence led by the plaintiff including his Power of Attorney holder and two other witnesses. Once there is no contra material to support that the premises is in occupation and use for the purpose for which it was let out, the evidence led by the plaintiff to justify the decree for possession on that ground as referred above, even otherwise need no interference. 4. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)