1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2005 Dharamchand Godha s/o Shantilal Godha ...Petitioner Versus Bhagwandas s/o Alidas Kalda (deceased through L.rs.) Mayadevi Bhagwandas Kalda and others ...Respondents ..... None for the petitioner Mr. Bhoomit A. Agrawal h/f Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This matter is taken up for final hearing. Though the matter is argued by the counsel for the respondents for about 15 to 20 minutes, none appears for the revision petitioner. 2 Since the facts of the matter are extensively stated in the judgment of the lower appellate court, it is not necessary to repeat the said facts. 3 The trial court framed two points for its determination whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.19,250/- of 2 the suit premises and the said issue has been answered in the affirmative. The second point which was framed by the trial court was whether the defendant has proved that he is in possession of the suit premises as owner. The said point has been answered in negative. So far as the first point is concerned, the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.19,250/- is concerned, the findings recorded by the trial court has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 4 So far as the second point is concerned, the trial court after discussing the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff, has arrived to the conclusion and recorded findings that the defendant has claimed ownership and possession of the premises wherein Municipal House No. 4-18-34 without any support of documentary evidence or oral evidence. The Court has also recorded that the plaintiff has filed P.R. card in which the city survey number of the suit premises is mentioned as 14923 and Municipal Number is 4-11-34. The municipal number mentioned by the defendant doe snot tally with the Municipal number mentioned by the plaintiff. Therefore, on both the points, the court below have concurrently held against the revision petitioner. 5 Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and the appellate court, it clearly emerges that there are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. Nothing has been brought on record so as to interfere with the impugned orders. Both 3 the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings. Nothing has been brought on record which suggests that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and there is any error committed by the courts below. 6 In the above facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the scope of Civil Revision Application, in my opinion, there is no substance in this Civil Revision Application and hence, this Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/