: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2009 Anil Shivgarud Singh ... Applicant V/s. Mahinder Kaur & Garcha & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.C. Shah for Applicant Mr.Umesh Shetty a/w S.D’souza for Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 9, 2009 P.C.: 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below by which he has been evicted from the suit premises. The applicant was in arrears of rent according to the respondents and therefore, they filed a suit contending that besides the applicant being in arreanrs of rent he had caused waste and damage to the suit premises and had unlawfully sublet the suit premies to a third person. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit by concluding that the plaintiffs had established the fact that the applicant was in arrears of rent for over a period of six months and that he had failed and neglected to pay the amount despite the notice served on him. The trial Court also held that the defendant applicant had caused waste and damage to the suit premises. As regards unlawful subletting the trial Court : 2 : on the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the applicant had in fact sublet the premises to a third person. However, the plaintiffs contention that the defendant had unlawfully constructed a permanent structure in the suit premises and has been disbelieved. 3. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant applicant filed an appeal. The appeal has been dismissed. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the evidence on record indicates that the applicant is a protected tenant since he was in the suit premises prior to 1973 and, therefore, such an issue ought to have been framed. It is further submitted that although there are no pleadings on this ground that he is entitled to protection u/s 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the applicant should be permitted to amend his pleadings and to lead evidence in that behalf before the trial Court. 5. In my opinion, this submission is without merit. Even assuming that the applicant is a protected tenant, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the applicant has defaulted in payment of rent. He has also sublet the suit premises which he has admitted in his evidence and, therefore, in my opinion, the applicant does not deserve any relief. 6. Civil Revision Application is dismissed.