1 CRA 81/2011 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Ms. Snehal Ratnakar for the applicants. Mr. P.J. Thorat for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This is a landlord’s revision application against the concurrent decisions of the two courts below dismissing the suit for eviction of the respondents. 3. Counsel for the applicants urged two grounds. She firstly submitted that the respondents had carried out permanent alterations in the suit premises. The original 2 CRA 81/2011 area of the premises was 8’ x 15’. However, it is alleged to have been increased to 8’ x 18’. The two Courts below on considering evidence on record have come to the conclusion that no such increase was made by the respondents. In paragraphs 24 to 26 of its decision, the appellate Court has carefully considered the issue and no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. As regards the subletting, it is the contention of the applicants that the respondents had sublet part of the premises. Admittedly, the respondents are carrying on business of selling sugarcane juice in the suit premises. According to the applicants, in the morning newspapers are sold in the premises by somebody else and in the afternoon business of selling mirrors is also carried on along with the sugarcane juice. This ground has also been negatived by both the Courts below. 3 CRA 81/2011 5. Both these grounds have been negatived by the two Courts below for want of sufficient evidence. In the absence of any perversity in the concurrent findings of fact on the both the grounds, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)