1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2010 Smt. Hemlata Narayandas Niranjan & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Smt. Kantaben Popatlal Shah Since deceased through her legal heirs: 1(a) Mrs. Sarojben Vinodrai Desai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Shiva Patil,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Shah, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1A to 1D.. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th May, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present petitioners are the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(g) are the L.Rs. of original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the Suit No.190/2002 for eviction and possession on two grounds (i) that the defendants had secured alternative accommodation and were not residing in the suit premises and (ii) that they had sublet the same to the defendant no.4. The defendant No.4 did not appear and the suit proceeded exparte. The defendant Nos. 2 1 to 3 did not examine any witness disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. In view of the evidence led by the plaintiffs, the trial court passed the decree for eviction on both the grounds. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 preferred Civil Appeal No. 276/2007. The appeal was dismissed upholding the decree on both grounds. The defendants have preferred the present Revision Application. There is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 never entered into witness box to deny that they had secured alternative accommodation and that they had sublet the premises. In view of these circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. I find no substance in the present Revision Application. Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)