1 WP 9687/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9687 OF 2010 Parvati Ramchandra Salian & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s S.D. Raikar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Vinod L. Desai for the petitioners. Mr. Ranjan Panikar for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The suit filed by the petitioner no.1’s husband for a declaration that he was a tenant in respect of the suit premises was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal the lower appellate court has confirmed the decision of the trial Court. 3. The question whether the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises is a question of fact. The two courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is not a tenant. The view taken by the two courts below is a possible view on facts and 2 WP 9687/10 does not call for any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Janaklali S. Gupta v. Namdeo Mahadeo, (2000) 1 SCC 176, submitted that since the counter suit filed by the respondents for a declaration that the petitioner was a gratuitous licensee has been dismissed, the only possible inference possible was that the petitioner was a tenant and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. In my view, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Janaklali S. Gupta v. Namdeo Mahadeo (supra) does not lay down any such proposition. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)