: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2007 Rafiq Rajjak Jamadar .. Applicant V/s. Shalan Dharmendra Dhakad .. Respondent Mr. R.S. Khandeparkar for the Applicant. Mr. S.N. Sanklecha and Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant has filed the present Civil Revision Application contending that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are erroneous and that the decree for eviction passed against him should be set aside. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed an error by passing a decree on the ground of bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord for the suit premises. He submits that today the respondent- landlord has acquired additional premises in view of the fact that another tenant has vacated the : 2 : same. According to him, therefore, the need of the respondent-landlord for additional premises is, thus, satisfied and the applicant need not be evicted. 2. Assuming that the need of the respondent- landlord for additional premises has been satisfied, the decree has also been passed on three other grounds namely (1) that the applicant-tenant was a defaulter in paying the rent; (2) that he had made a permanent construction without the consent and prior permission of the Pune Municipal Corporation or the landlord; and (3) nuisance. 3. The finding of the trial Court on the ground of nuisance caused by the applicant-tenant has been reversed by the Appellate Court. However, the decree passed on the ground of arrears of rent and permanent construction without the consent of the respondent-landlord has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. : 3 : 4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant- tenant that the construction was carried out prior to the applicant-tenant acquiring the suit premises. However, from the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it appears that the applicant-tenant constructed a bathroom of 3 ft. x 3 ft. outside the suit property with brick, sand and cement. The trial Court has held that the respondent-landlord was unable to prove that the attic which was in the suit premises was constructed by the applicant-tenant without his permission. 5. These are the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below which, in my opinion, need not be interfered with in the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from this, both the Courts below have found that the applicant- tenant was irregular in paying rent to the respondent-landlord and that he was, therefore, a defaulter. : 4 : 6. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 7. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 8. On the request made by the learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of six months from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant-tenant as well as all the adults in his family to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......