1 ndm 62 cra.610.09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 610 OF 2009 Dharma Bhagoji Babare Vs. Smt. Malini Gajanan Bhingarde and ors Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. D.B.Sawant for the Applicant. Mr. N.D.Jaywant for Respondent No.7. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th December, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. Suit for declaration of tenancy was filed by the revision Applicant. The case of the revision Applicant is that the one Vishwanath Ganpat More was the tenant of Shop No.5 carrying on business of sale of Tobacco and Supari. In the year 1982, a partition was put up in the said shop premises and an area of 9x8 ft. was let out to the Applicant at monthly rent of Rs.12 per day and Rs.25/- for providing electricity facility. The 1st to 8th defendants are the legal representatives of the said Vishwanath and the 9th defendant is the landlord. 2 Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the Applicant has failed to establish that he was inducted as a sub-tenant by the said Vishwanath. 2 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant pointed out that the possession of the applicant from the year 1962 has been established and there is evidence on record to show that the Applicant has purchased goods for the purposes of the business. He submitted that evidence on record shows that the Applicant was inducted as a sub-tenant by the said Vishwanath. 4 After having heard the leaned counsel appearing for the Applicant and after having perused the findings recorded by the Courts below, I find that the Courts below have considered the entire evidence on record. The Applicant admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that the rent was paid by him to the said Vishwanath and after his demise, to his widow. He came out with the case that he was paying rent through a servant. Even the name of the servant was not disclosed. A case was made out by the Applicant in his evidence that the rent was initially 25 paise per day and was increased from time to time. There was no pleading to that effect and in fact in the plaint the case made out was that right from the year 1962, the rent was Rs.12/- per day. According to the Applicant, the defendants used to take entry of payment of rent in their diary. However, the Applicant did not call upon the concerned defendants to produce the diary. In the Municipal licences produced by the Applicant, the widow of the said Vishwanath shown as the owner of the business and the Applicant has been shown as a conductor of the business. 3 5 In view of the concurrent findings of fact based for appreciation and oral and documentary evidence on record, no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision Application is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]