1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2008 Sau Laxmibai Kashinath Chaure & ors ..Applicants V/s Maruti Patil Aher ..Respondent Mr.P.N.Joshi, Advocate, for the applicants Mr.Sachin Gite i/b.Mr.M.S.Karnik, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. . By the above Civil Revision Application, the applicant takes exception to the Judgment & Order dated 30th September, 2006, by which order the Civil Appeal filed by the appellants against the Judgment & Decree passed by the Trial Court i.e.9th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, in Regular Civil Suit No.303 of 1998 dated 24th October, 2001, came to be dismissed. The applicants are the landlords in respect of a Chawl bearing Municipal House No.4521 in CTS No.7517. The respondent No.1 herein is the tenant in respect 2 of a room in the said Chawl. The applicants filed Regular Civil Suit No.303 of 1998 seeking a decree against the respondent No.1 on the ground of default as also on the ground that the possession of the tenanted premises are required as the building requires repairs on account of its dilapidated condition. 2. Parties went on trial. The Trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that was before it, partly decreed the suit, only in so far as the payment of arrears of rent, which, according to the Trial Court, was to the extent of Rs.3000/-. The claim of the plaintiffs for possession on the said two grounds was however rejected. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the Money Order Receipts Exh.82, Exh.83 and Exh.84 could not be accepted and therefore, held that none of the said three documents established that the money has been sent to the plaintiffs. 3. Aggrieved by the said part decreeing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No.526 of 2001. Said Appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned Order dated 30th September, 2006. The 3 Appellate Court recorded a finding that the alleged ground of default is a got up ground as in the notice sent by the plaintiffs it is stated that the structure is in dilapidated condition and on account of which the plaintiffs were claiming possession of the tenanted premises. The Appellate Court also recorded a finding that in view of the deposits made up to date after filing of the suit, there were no arrears of rent. The Appellate Court therefore has confirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court in so far as the dilapidated condition of the building is concerned and rejected the case of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has, however, on the basis of the material on record before it, set aside part decreeing of the suit in so far as the arrears of the rent to the extent of Rs.3000/- is concerned. 4. In my view, having considered the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below and the finding of the Appellate Court in so far as the setting aside of the part decreeing of the suit as regards the arrears of the rent is concerned, no case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is made out. The above Civil Revision Application is accordingly 4 dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)