1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 699 OF 2008 Shridhar Somayya Shetty ..Applicant. vs. Shirish Shankarrao Wagholikar & Ors. ..Respondents. ===== Ms.Deepali Patil, i/by Amrit Karkhanis for the applicant. Mr.Sudhir Hardiken for respondent no.1 & 2. ===== CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard rival submission for some time. 3. It is the revision application preferred by original defendant no.2, against the order of dismissal of Civil Appeal No.119 pf 2003 by the VIIIth Additional District Court, Pune on 7th April 2004. Said appeal was preferred by the petitioner-original defendant no.2 against the earlier order dated 24th January 2003 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 581 of 2000. Said suit was 2 preferred by original plaintiff owners of the suit premises against one Rajiv Vithal Shetty and against present petitioner-defendant no.2 Shridhar Sommayya Shetty. The tenanted Hotel premises was initially given on rent to one Vithhal Shetty, father of original defendant no.1. Subsequently, defendant no.1 subletted the premises to defendant no.2. Both the earlier courts i.e. the trial court and also first appellate court had gave concurrent findings as to directing both the defendants to quit and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and also directing them for payment of arrears of rent etc. 4. Apart from the above proceedings, it may be mentioned that earlier present petitioner had preferred suit for simplicitor declaration and injunction, declaration not a tenant and injunction as to interfere with his possession over the suit property. Said suit was filed against the landlords. However, said suit was dismissed and appeal preferred against such order was also dismissed. The matter was taken before this Court in writ petition. However, writ petition was also dismissed. As such, though the present petitioner lost in all Courts, still, there was no possibility for the original landlords to recover the possession to take the steps for filing of the eviction suit and as such the suit was filed which was decreed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner-original defendant no.2 was also dismissed. In view of such factual position, now, the submission on behalf of the petitioner-defendant no.2 that the 3 suit for eviction cannot be maintained under the Rent Act provisions, cannot be accepted. 5. Considering the concurrent findings of the trial court and then first appellate court, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere in the said impugned order of the first appellate court, under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and hence, the present civil revision application is disposed of accordingly. Civil revision application stand dismissed. All the interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)