1 srk IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 389 OF 2009 Parvatibai T. Kadam & Ors. ... Applicants vs Partapsingh S. Sable & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. V.S. Talkute, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: R.S.MOHITE, J DATE: 9th September, 2009. P.C. 1 This is the Revision Application filed by the tenant against the concurrent decrees of two lower courts in the eviction proceeding filed by the landlords under the Rent Act. Both the courts passed the decrees on account of erection of permanent structure as well as on the ground of bonafide requirement. On the ground of erection of permanent structure the courts have concluded that the construction of permanent nature was made in 1994. The landlord approached the Estate Officer who recorded a finding that tenant had erected unauthorized structure and directed eviction. This matter was challenged by the tenant before the District Court and the said finding was 2 confirmed by the District Court and even the High Court rejected the Writ Petition vide its order dated 21.11.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 5518 of 1996 filed by the tenant. The record indicates that the tenant after the passing of the High Court order, has permanently removed the said structure. It was contended on behalf of the tenant that his act of such voluntarily removal prior to the filing of the suit must result in the elimination of the cause of action. Reliance is placed upon judgment of this court in the case of Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani Vs. Durgashankar G. Shroff & Ors. reported in 2004 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 333). The facts in this case were, however, different. The tenant was allegedly directed and fine was imposed by the contempt court without notice to tenant. In these circumstances, the court held that the fact of notice and payment of fine by the landlord cannot be sufficient to establish factum that bathrooms had been constructed recently. The decree for illegal construction under 13 (1)(b) was therefore decided. The advocate for the applicant then relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Ramchandra Dattatraya Gandhi Vs. Sou. Pushpabai Manohar Sheth, reported in 1990(1) Bom.C.R. 643. In that case landlord has not leaded evidence in nature of construction. Therefore, it was held that the construction was not proved properly. In the present case, however, there is a finding of the Estate Officer which is confirmed by the District Court and the High Court. 3 There was unauthorized structure which was constructed and admitted by the tenant himself. He removed said structure after the decision of the High Court. It would not be proper to address that question as it is essential question of fact since the two courts have confirmed the said findings. In this view, I am not inclined to go since the decree is required to be confirmed on this ground. The Civil Revision Application is therefore summarily dismissed. 2 At this stage advocate for the petitioner seeks continuation of the ad- interim relief for eight weeks. The ad-interim relief, therefore is continued for a period of eight weeks subject to filing of the undertaking within two weeks from today. All the petitioners to file undertaking that they will not create any third party right in part thereof. Judge.