1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 303/2011 (Tarunkumar L. Joshi VERSUS Divakar M. Belsare & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.K. Paliwal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Gaikwad, counsel for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 25 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the two concurrent judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court granting a decree of possession in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2 under Section 16(1)(e) & (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of both the judgments in detail, that the Courts have, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the petitioner had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to the respondent no.3 and the petitioner had also changed the user of the suit premises from Divya Electronics to Gujrat Farsan. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on reocrd. The judgments reported in AIR 1988 SC 145 (M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. Versus H.C. Sharma & others), AIR 1984 SC 1447 (Jagdish Prasad Versus Smt. Angoori Devi) and 1978 Mh.L.J. 545 (Dattatraya Ramchandra 2 Sapkal Versus Gulabrao Tukaram Bhosale) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the reported cases. It appears that in view of the clause 3 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2, the petitioner had agreed that he would not use the suit premises for any business other than the business of Divya Electronics and would also not sublet the premises. The judgments passed by both the Courts are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE