: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2008 Bhalchandra Mahadev Pimpalaskar & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. Anuradha Pandurang Karpe ... Respondent Mr.A.B. Tajane for Applicants Mr.D.S. Pagare for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2010 P.C.: 1. The application has been preferred by the legal heir of the original defendants in the suit filed before the Small Causes Court at Pune for eviction. The applicant is a tenant in the suit premises. He contends that both the Courts below have erroneously decreed the suit and have directed the applicant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. 2. A perusal of the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Pune indicates that the trial Court has held that the plaintiff-landlady i.e. the respondent herein, had proved that the applicant had failed to pay the rent to her from May 1996. It has also been held that the applicant had carried out permanent alterations in the suit premises without any sanction from the landlady. Further, the trial Court held that the applicant had caused nuisance and annoyance to the landlady and other neighbours. The suit was therefore decreed. Being aggrieved, the applicant had filed an appeal before the District Court. The appeal has been dismissed and the decree has been confirmed. : 2 : 3. It is contended by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant that no opportunity was granted to the applicant to defend the suit. He submits that the order of ‘no w.s.’ was passed during the pendency of the standard rent application filed by the applicant. He further points out that the order of “no cross” was also passed while the standard rent application was pending. According to the learned advocate, great prejudice has been caused to the applicant by refusing permission to file a written statement. 4. Admittedly, these orders of “no w.s.” and “no cross” were not challenged by the applicant at any point of time and, therefore, the submission is unsustainable. 5. In my view, the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant are of no avail. There is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the applicant is in arrears of rent since 6.5.1996 and that he has carried out permanent alterations without the consent of the landlady. The Courts below have also concurrently observed that the applicant had caused nuisance to his neighbours as well as the landlady. In my view, these findings of fact need not be disturbed in this Court’s revisionary jurisdiction which is extremely limited. In this view of the matter, the civil revision application is dismissed. 6. Stay granted earlier shall continue for a period of eight weeks on the usual undertaking to be furnished by the applicant and all adults in the family who reside with him.