/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3746 OF 1991 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2001 Shri.Abhay Narayan Mhaskar since deceased his legal heirs and representatives 1A Rutha Abhay Mhaskar & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri. Ramchandra Sadashiv Bhat since deceased through his legal heirs 1A. Smt. Vijayalaxmi Ramchandra Bhat & Ors. ...Respondents Shri.Jaydeep Deo i/b. Mrs.Suhasini Mutalik for Petitioners. Shri.S.N. Chandrachud for Respondents. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 18th JANUARY, 2008. P.C:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the original tenant. Respondent No.1/Landlord filed a suit seeking possession of the shop premises which was let out to the / 2 / Defendant No.1/Petitioner No.1 herein on various grounds. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent No.1. The lower Appellate Court, however, allowed appeal on the ground of bonafide requirement and passed order of eviction on the said ground. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the lower Appellate Court had not taken into consideration admission which was given by the Respondent No.1/landlord in his cross examination to the effect that landlord was in possession of the attic of premises of Mr.Bagul. It is submitted that this fact was suppressed by the landlord from the Court and therefore, he was not entitled to get decree of possession in respect of said shop. He submitted that in examination-in-chief Defendant had given area of the premises which was in possession of the landlord. 4. It is not possible to accept this submission in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003)6 SCC page 675. The Apex Court has observed / 3 / in para 12 as under:- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an appellate court and step into reappreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court.” 5. Keeping in view principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, it is not possible to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court. In my view, no case is made out for setting aside judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Civil Application. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. V.M. KANADE, J. / 4 /