1 Cra-964.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 964 OF 2010 Rajesh (Prabhudas Anandrao Naware. .. Applicant Vs Jagmohan Bagarka ( since deceased ) 1(a) Mrs. Laxmidevi J. Bagarka & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.R. Salvi i/by Ms Suvarna B. Telgote for the Applicant. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. The Applicant is the 2nd Defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the Respondents Nos. 1(a) to 1(d). A decree has been passed by the Trial Court against the Applicant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 on the ground of carrying of permanent additions and alterations to the suit premises. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that it is not the specific case made out by the landlords that the construction of any permanent nature has been carried out by the Applicant. He pointed out that on the contrary, construction was carried 2 Cra-964.10 out in terms of the repair permission granted by the Municipal Corporation on 10th June, 1994 which was produced on record and exhibited. The said document has been marked as “Exhibit-C”. He submitted that the specific case of the applicant was that there was already a mezzanine floor in the suit premises. He submitted that in any event, even assuming that an additional floor was constructed, the Plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to show the nature of construction and have not established the fact that the same amounts to carrying out permanent construction. He submitted that as the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden, the decree on the ground of carrying out permanent additions and alterations could not have been passed. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The case made out by the landlord in the examination-in-chief is that the suit premises was a ground floor structure which has been converted into ground plus upper floor by raising the height thereof after the reconstruction. 4. It is true that in the examination in chief, the Applicant has come out with a case that there was a mezzanine floor already in existence. However, in view of Paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, the Applicant has stated thus:- “It is true that at the time of induction of the Defendant No.1 in the suit premises it was only ground floor premises. I had carried out the repairs of the suit premises in the y3ear 1993. It is true that I had obtained permission of BMC for repairs. The said permission is at Exh. C. It is true that the sketch with 3 Cra-964.10 Exh. C is of the ground floor structure. It is true that at present the suit premises is a ground floor structure and upper floor. It is not true that under the guise of repairs I constructed upper floor.” 5. Thus, there is a clear admission that the suit premises was only a ground floor structure and even in the document at Exhibit-C which is relied upon by the Applicant, it is shown as the ground plus one floor structure. There is a categorical admission that at present the suit premises is of ground floor and upper floor. 6. It is not the case of the Applicant that the upper floor is of a temporary structure. Moreover, permission at Exhibit-C produced by the Applicant itself shows that the structure has 9” thick brick masonry walls and cement plaster. 7. After having admitted that the upper floor has been constructed, the Applicant did not come out with a case that the same was not of a permanent nature. In view of the aforesaid admission, it is not possible to find fault with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is rejected. The decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of three months from today. (A.S.OKA, J)