1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2008. 1) Balwantsngh Ishwarsingh Bansal Since deceased through his L.Rs. 1A) Surendrakaur Balwantsingh Bansal and others. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) Smt. Uttambai Rangnath Diwate Since deceased through her L.Rs. 1A) Sahebrao Uttam Diwate and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VR Dhorde,Adv. h/for Mr.RL Kute, Adv. for Petitioners; Mr.AM Gaikwad, Adv. for Resp.Nos.1-B(1-B1 to B4) and 1-C; ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 16th November,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. 2) Eviction decree passed against the defendant/tenant, confirmed by both the courts below on the ground of default in remittance of rent, is question by the tenant. 2 3) The tenant/petitioner occupies an open space, admeasuring 14 ft. X 15 ft. belonging to the landlady from the house bearing 1505 @ Rs. 30/- per month. The tenant carried construction of shed for running a garage on the said property. There was earlier round of litigation between the parties being RCS No.303/1979, in which, learned Civil Judge, Junior Division held that the tenant was not in arrears as he has paid the municipal taxes towards the suit property, being part of such arrangement between the parties. 4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant, taking recourse to the said observations informs, in the light of above finding, the tenant has been regularly remitting the municipal taxes, which are to be adjusted towards the rent and consequently, according to him, there was no default on the part of the tenant. He has asserted, both the courts have erred in recording the findings of arrears. 5) Both the courts have critically analyzed the evidence, vis-a-vis, the receipts; witness of the Municipal Council, informing the court that whatever the taxes the tenant had paid were restricting to the constructed portion of the shed and it could not be for the other portion of the property owned by the landlady. 3 7) The observations of the learned District Judge in paragraph 12 of the judgment endorse that whatever taxes paid by the tenant to the Municipal Council, are in respect of the construction standing on the suit premises let out to him, which is owned by the tenant and consequently, the tenant is liable to pay the taxes, even according to the evidence of the witness of the Municipal Council examined by the plaintiff. The learned District Judge has analyzed the receipts tendered by both the sides and dealt with the same in paragraph 13 of the Judgment. I do not find that the finding of fact recorded by both the courts against the petitioner/tenant are perverse and contrary to the record. No infirmity in the order. Civil Revision Application lacks merits, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/