1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1025 OF 2009 Mr. M.R.Gala & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. M/s.Nilesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited. ...Respondents Shri Bipin Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. S.Gadkari, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 4th March, 2009. P.C.: The Petitioners as the member of the Respondent-Society have challenged the impugned orders, whereby considering the material available on record, it has been held that the Petitioners have carried out additions and alterations in their flat without permission of the Society and the Municipal Corporation. This concurrent findings of facts considering the material on record submitted by both the parties, needs no interference. It is recorded that there is no prior permission, from the Respondent Society for removal of combined walls, which is required as per the by-laws of the Respondent-Society. There is no written permission on record. Therefore, the whole burden lies upon the Petitioners to prove 2 their case and/or to support the alterations and the additions that have been made. 2. In the present case, at relevant time no written statement was filed. However, the evidence was led. One affidavit is on record but that according to the Petitioners is not a Written Statement. There is no justification on record to show that why the said Written Statement should not be filed at appropriate time. In this background, the permanent additions/alteration which have been done are in breach of the by-laws of the Society. 3. In view of above, the order to restore the original position needs no interference. There is no perversity. The impugned orders are well within the framework of laws and records. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners on instructions states that they will restore the position back as directed within two months. 4. In view of this, the Petition is disposed of. No cost. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)