dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3846 OF 1991 PETITION NO.3846 OF 1991 PETITION NO.3846 OF 1991 Champaklal Ramchandra Parekh Petitioner Vs. Parasmal W. Jain (Oswal) & Anr. Respondents. None for the Petitioner. Mr.Navin B. Shah for the Respondent no.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 20th November, 2008. : 20th November, 2008. : 20th November, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: The petitioner/tenant has challenged the concurrent findings of fact, whereby, after considering the material placed on record, the courts below held that defendant no.1/the petitioner has committed acts of waste; made permanent construction in the suit premises without his consent; and the said permanent construction is injurious to the suit premises. 2. There is no dispute that the property was let out to the petitioner/tenant. While enjoying the same, without the consent of the landlord the petitioner made unauthorised construction on the property. There are documentary evidence including the police complaint, partition deed, photographs, application ( 2 ) given to the municipality. Therefore, if the tenant’s construction is without consent, according to the plaintiff/tenant and as proved is injurious to the property, I see there is no reason to interfere with the same as there is no perversity as such in the impugned order. 3. The view so expressed by the courts below, based on the material available, therefore, need no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)