IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 598 OF 2008 SHRI. GURUDAS B. NAIK ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. SUBHASH DHAKU MANDREKAR ... Respondent Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 9th February, 2009 P.C. This writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the Administrative Tribunal whereby the revision preferred by the landlord/bhatkar has been dismissed. 2. The respondent/mundkar had applied for injunction restraining the bhatkar from demolishing his house. The Mamlatdar granted injunction in favour of the mundkar. Since he held that the respondent had proved that he was a mundkar of the suit house, he granted injunction. Being aggrieved by that order, the present petitioner/Bhatkar preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector. The appeal came to be dismissed. Against that order, a revision came to be filed before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal also held in favour of the mundkar and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the three orders, this petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Lotlikar learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case the Courts below have fallen in error in holding that the portion in possession of the respondent is a dwelling house, which is in fact a verandah and therefore, the authorities below have fallen in error in holding him as a mundkar. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Menezes contended that the three courts below have held that what is in possession of the respondent is a dwelling house and therefore the Courts were right in holding that the respondent is a mundkar of the house with a separate entity. Mr. Lotlikar submitted that in no case a verandah could be treated as a dwelling house. He submitted that a portion in possession of the respondent should be a separate entity and accommodation in possession of the mundkar cannot be said to be a separate entity. 4. After going through the findings of the three courts below, I find that they are concurrent findings. Walls were constructed around the veranda and the same has been enclosed and therefore it has become a room. These three concurrent findings are based on evidence and is therefore, a finding of fact. No perversity in appreciation of evidence is shown. 5. Learned counsel Mr.Lotlikar contended that all facilities were taken from the main house i.e. water, electricity and toilet were enjoyed by the respondent and it was being used by the respondent on the permission granted by the landlord and therefore, the house in possession of the mundkar cannot be treated as a separate entity and self contained tenement. It appears from the findings of the Courts below that the suit portion is in exclusive possession of the respondent/mundkar. In view of this, I do not find any error with the findings of the Courts which are based on evidence before it. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Lotlikar submits that a window of the said house opens verandah i.e. suit house and it seems that there is an admission to this effect. It is not clear whether this window is open or closed. The three courts below have held concurrently that the dwelling house of the respondent/mundkar is a seperate entity. This Court cannot re-assess the evidence and disturb the findings of the three courts below which are concurrent. This is a case where no interference is called for. Hence the petition is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.