1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 397 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5099 OF 2009 Ashadevi Prabhudayal Taneja since deceased through his legal heirs) 1. Sitadevi Prabhudayal Taneja and others. - - - Appellants versus Fardunji Phirojsha Mistry deceased through his legal heirs 1-A) Tehmina w/o. Fardunji Mistry and others. - - - - - Respondents Shri M. L. Sangeet, Advocate for appellants. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 27th July 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present Appeal, the appellants challenge the Order dated 3-3-2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 397 of 2006. 2 2. Shri Sangit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that learned Single Judge has grossly erred in not taking into consideration that the appellant was the only person who was residing with the original tenant namely; Dwarkadas. He submits that the tenanted premises were occupied as said Dwarkadas was performing ritual rites in Guru Mandir Saheb Shindi Mandir. It is submitted that after the demise of Dwarkadas, present appellant was performing said duty. 3. It is further found in the finding recorded by the trial Court that sub tenancy was also not supported by the evidence on record. 4. The jurisdiction of the Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the concurrent findings of facts is very limited. Unless concurrent findings of facts are perverse, it is not permissible to reverse the concurrent findings in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has found that reasonings adopted by the Courts below while arriving at concurrent findings of facts were cogent and sound. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge has failed to 3 exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any error committed by learned Single Judge. The order passed by learned Single Judge does not warrant interference. Hence, the appeal is rejected. In view of the rejection of the appeal, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/lpa7709