IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 346 OF 2010 Dr.Rameshchandra Sundarji Chaksota .. Applicant Vs 1. Shri Dilipkumar Pranjivan Thakkar and ors .. Respondents Mr. P.S.Dani, Advocate, for the applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN,J. DATE : 01/07/2010. PC: This Application is directed against concurrent findings of the Civil Judge and the District Judge that the applicant was liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the courts had come to the conclusion that there was no construction of a permanent nature created by the applicant and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, there could be no subletting. The courts have held that the construction with aluminum frame and sheets is not one of permanent nature. There is nothing wrong in this finding. This does not conflict with the finding that the premises were sub-let since, even by carving out T a portion by erecting aluminum sheet frame partition, a specific portion can be sublet. The courts have properly analyzed the evidence as to subletting and have come to the conclusion that the applicant was liable to be evicted as he had sublet the premises to defendant nos 2 and 3. There is no reason as to why this concurrent finding should be disturbed. The Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. The applicant is present in court and seeks time till the end of March, 2011 to vacate the premises. The applicant may not be evicted for a period of three months on his furnishing an usual undertaking in this court within four weeks. (R.C.Chavan, J.)