1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2009 Mirza Isamialbaig Mirza Sattarbaig ...Petitioner Versus Mohd. Muniroddin Mohd. Fayazuddin ...Respondent ..... Mr. A,S, Bajaj, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This civil revision application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.10.2004 passed by the IInd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2000, passed by the IInd Joint C.J.J.D. Jalna in Regular Civil Suit No. 73 of 1995. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds taken in the revision application and submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse. It is further submitted that non examination of handwriting on the consent letter by 2 the Courts below amounts to failure of exercise of the jurisdiction vested in them. Learned counsel invited my attention to other grounds raised in revision application and submitted that revision application be allowed. 3 I have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Jalna on 7.10.2004. On careful perusal, I do not find any error committed by the court below in recording the finding while passing the impugned order. I find that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.1000/- per month. It is not in dispute that both the courts below have concurrently held against the revision petitioner. The scope of revision is very limited and unless some jurisdictional error is committed by the courts below, no interference is warranted under the revisional jurisdiction. 4 The perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Joint C.J.J.D. Jalna it appears that the learned C.J.J.D. has framed as many as four points for its consideration and held that the plaintiff has proved that monthly rent of the suit premises is Rs.1000/-. In the facts of the case, it is also proved that the defendants are in arrears of rent since March, 1993 to January, 1995 and accordingly the court has held that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery. 5 Viewed from any angle, I find that there are concurrent findings 3 of facts recorded by the courts below on the strength of the evidence, which was brought on record, No perversity is shown so as to upset the concurrent findings of facts. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. Civil Revision Application is thus rejected. *****