1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.18 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2010 Shri Pyaresaheb Keshrisingh Rana ..Applicant Age about 67 years, Occu : Retired Residing at Flat No.3, First Floor, Shakeel Mansion, Juhu Road, Mumbai  400 049. V/s. Mrs. Khairoonissa Mohamed Kapadi ..Respondent Age about 74 years, Occu : Housewife Residing at Flat No.2, Ground Floor, Shakeel Mansion, Juhu Road, Mumbai  400 049. Mr.P.K.Rana-in-person, for the Applicant Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel with Mr.Vishal Kanade, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT . This Revision Application was dismissed by Judgment dated 4th August, 2010 after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the applicant in person filed application for review bearing No. 2 18 of 2010 pointing out that in the Judgment dated 4th August, 2010, it had been mentioned that the applicant had admitted that the toilet block in South-West bed room once existed and did not exist when he deposed. The applicant in person pointed out that no such admission had been given by him and the deposition writer has wrongly recorded his deposition which had also been brought to the notice of the Trial Court immediately. In view of this, this Revision Application was heard again and is being decided by this Judgment. 2. The respondent  landlady had sought appellant's ejectment on the grounds of bona fide need, act of waste and making permanent alteration. These alterations had not been specifically pleaded in the plaint as initially filed. After a Commissioner was appointed by consent of parties by Order dated 30th April, 1991 to examine the changes made, and the report 3 of Commissioner was received, the plaint was amended and the changes which had been effected were pleaded. 3. Though the Trial Court had granted the decree on the ground of bona fide need, this was reversed by Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes and this reversal has not been challenged by the landlady. Both the Courts, however, concurrently held that the applicant was liable to be evicted for acts of waste and effecting permanent alteration. 4. The only question that is required to be considered in this Revision Application is whether the landlady had proved that the tenant had bifurcated a toilet block situated between Bed Room Two and the kitchen and divided it into two toilet blocks by constructing a wall; and whether he had demolished a toilet block which was situated in the Bed Room one. If it is so 4 proved, it would be undisputable that this amounts to effecting permanent alteration, as also act of waste since it would be act causing damage to building as there is an allegation of leakage due to changes in the toilet blocks. 5. In view of Judgments of this Court in Ramrao Balaji Kothare and others Versus Lila, Widow of Dr.Y.Narayan Ajinkya and others, reported at 1998 Bom.C.R.299, where removal of a wall without landlord's permission was held enough to warrant tenant's ejectment and Judgment in Dr. C. C. Yi Vs. Smt.Janakidevi Anantlal Gupta & ors, reported at 2001(3)ALL MR 324, where even replacement of a wooden door was held to be change of permanent nature, if the alteration alleged is proved, applicant's eviction would have to be upheld. Since this is purely a question of fact, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction it would be 5 impermissible to re-appreciate the evidence and come to contrary findings. The scrutiny is, therefore, restricted to examining if the concurrent findings of Courts are below perverse or rendered without there being any evidence. 6. It is the applicant's contention that in order to prove that the applicant had effected such changes, it was necessary for the landlord to prove as to what was the situation of the premises before the Commissioner inspected them, since the Commissioner has undisputedly found that the toilet block in the bed room No.1 did not exist and the toilet block attached to bed room No.2 was divided by creating two blocks. It is the applicant's contention that there was no toilet block in bed room no.1 and the toilet blocks near bed room no.2 exist as they were since the inception of his tenancy. Therefore, according to him, unless it is shown that the applicant made these alterations, he would not 6 be liable to ejectment. 7. In order to prove the alteration of a permanent nature made by the applicant, on behalf of the landlady, her son and Constituted Attorney was examined. It was alleged that her son did not have any personal knowledge and therefore, his evidence was of no use. In addition, it was submitted that evidence of a holder of Power of Attorney for landlady would not be a substitute for evidence by the landlady herself. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent  landlady, there is absolutely no bar to examination of a member of family as holder of landlady's Power of Attorney, about the facts which may be within his knowledge. For this purpose reliance was placed on two Judgments of this Court in SHANKAR s/o. RATIRAM BHURE vs. SMT. SEETADVI w/o. VISHNUKUMAR MODI, reported at 2006(2) Mh.L.J.511 7 and Mangesh Govind Patane Versus Nagesh Vasant Kadam & others, reported at 2005(4) Bom.C.R.554. Since the landlady's son had stated about what he had noticed, there is no question of discarding his evidence. 8. The landlady seeks to prove that the alteration of a permanent nature had been made, by a reference to certified copy of building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Authority. The certified copy of this plan seems to have been produced at the fag end of trial and was read in evidence without examining any officer from the Municipal Authority. As already observed by the Courts below, the applicant himself had also obtained a certified copy of the plan from the Municipal Authority but did not produce the same. The copy is made available by the applicant before this Court and the plan is same as the one which had been produced on behalf of the landlady. The applicant in person submits 8 that though both the certified copies are of the same plan which was approved on 28th March, 1986, the signatures of the person, who had allegedly approved the plan appearing on the rubber stamp in the copies supplied are different. Therefore, according to him, the plans are fabricated by the Municipal Authorities who too have have been helping the landlady. Now, it would be too far fetched to conclude on the basis of comparison of signatures on the stamped endorsements in the two certified copies made available to the landlady and the tenant that the plan in the record of the Municipal Authority is itself forged or fabricated. The fact that the applicant too could get the copy of same plan from the Municipal Authority would show that the only plan which is available with the Municipal Authority shows only one toilet block abutting kitchen, as also the existence of a toilet block inside Bed Room No.1. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent  9 landlady submitted that the changes made in the toilet block are even visible from the outside, since an additional window has been created when one toilet block was split into two, and drainage pipe of the toilet block which was removed could be seen to have been disconnected. 9. Since the applicant has been occupying the premises for a very long time, if the premises are not in the same shape as in sanctioned plan, the inescapable inference would be that applicant authored the changes. This is so, because applicant does not claim that the premises are in the same condition as they were when he first occupied them. He claimed in his deposition that they are in better shape, and admits having carried out repairs. This is an evasive answer. 10. The applicant in person submitted that the toilet blocks were similar to those in 10 another tenement on the same floor and for this purpose, he had also examined his neighbour Nilofer S.M.Hussain. The cross examination of this neighbour would show the witness was married to one R. Hussain and started residing in Rohit Co-operative Society at Juhu. She stated that her son had a flat at Mira Road but denied that after the divorce with her first husband, she started residing at Mira Road. She admitted that she was residing in premises called 'Bhanu Apartment' and was also staying at Dubai along with her first husband. Curiously, she denied that she was residing with her first or second husband for 12 years, but admitted that her husbands were never residing with her in the suit building! It is doubtful whether the word of this witness could be decisive of the question as to how tenement in applicant's possession looked like when it was let out to him. 11 11. The applicant in person submitted that the Architect, who had visited the premises as Court Commissioner had stated that the changes which he had noticed were very fresh when they could not have been so described in the face of what plaintiff's son and Power of Attorney had stated. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent  landlady submitted that the word very fresh has to be read relatively and very fresh could not be taken to mean as if the changes were carried out just a few days before the inspection. He submitted that it was open to the applicant to elicit from the witness as to what he meant by the word fresh and to pin down the witness to a point of time at which changes were carried out. Thus, it can not be said that the Courts below erred in relying on certified copy of building plan as also the evidence of Court Commissioner to conclude that toilet block on the North was split into two and toilet block in Bed Room No.1 was removed. 12 12. Therefore, even without the applicant's admission which according to him, was a typing mistake on the part of deposition writer, the conclusion would be the same. The learned Senior Counsel for the landlady also pointed to the vacillations of applicant on the question of Commissioner's visit. It was suggested to the Commissioner in cross examination on behalf of applicant on 13th July, 2006, that the Commissioner had prepared Ex 'F' without visiting the suit premises. But in his own cross on 16th September, 2006, the applicant admitted that he was present when the Court Commissioner visited the premises. Again on 11th October, 2006 the applicant stated that he did not remember whether Shri R.K.Gandhi (the Commissioner) visited the suit premises as Court Commissioner. (It may be recalled that Gandhi was appointed as Commissioner by consent of parties). Again in cross on 6th November, 2006 applicant admitted that he was present during 13 the execution of the Commission. It cannot, therefore, be said that learned Judges of Courts below erred in refusing to accept the applicant's story. 13. The applicant has tagged to his application written arguments and copies of a number Judgments  most of which have no bearing on the matter, since the question raised in this revision is one purely of fact. There is absolutely no warrant to upset concurrent findings recorded on that question by the Courts below by property appreciating evidence. Ordinarily, a two line Judgment holding that concurrent findings of fact which are not shown to be perverse call for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would have sufficed. But since the applicant has taken pains to raise all possible objections, this Judgment became necessary. 14 14. In view of the foregoing, Civil Revision Application is dismissed. At the request of the revisional petitioner in person, the decree shall not be put to execution for a period of eight weeks after the judgment is available on the website of this Court on his furnishing fresh undertaking that he will not induct any third person in the premises and if he does not obtain any favourable orders from the Supreme Court, he will vacate the premises at the end of the eight week period without demur. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 15 For the reasons to be recorded, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. At the request of the revisional petitioner in person, the decree shall not be put to execution for a period of eight weeks after the judgment is available on the internet on his furnishing fresh undertaking that he will not induct any third person in the premises and 16 if he does not obtain any favour orders from the Supreme Court, he will vacate the premises at the end of the eight week period. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)