1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.219 OF 2009 M/s.Ganpat Harjivan & Anr. .. Applicants Versus Krishnakumar Girdharilal Gupta .. Respondent Mr.Y.T.John i/b. Ajay K. J. Panicker for applicant Mr.P.S.Dani with Mahesh Shukla i/b. M/s.Desai Diwanji for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th April 2010. P.C.: 1] This is a civil revision application by original defendant No.1/ appellant in Appeal No.545 of 1999, which was decided by the lower appellate court by the impugned order. 2] The applicant is original defendant No.1 in RAE Suit No.94/633/69 filed against the applicant and others by the respondents – original plaintiffs. 3] The suit is for possession of the premises to which the then Bombay Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 applied. The 2 possession was sought inter alia on the ground of permanent construction being put up without consent of the Landlord falling under section 13(1) (b) read with section 108(O) of the Transfer of Property Act. 4] The suit was resisted by the applicant original defendant No.1. The case set up by the applicant was that the structure was dilapidated and old. A notice was received from the Municipal Corporation for carrying out repairs. It was not possible for the Landlord to carry out repairs unless the appellants were evicted. The case of the landlord that he allegedly tried to pursuade the applicant – original defendant No.1 is not proved and on the other hand what was pleaded was that the original plaintiff approached the defendants to the suit and expressed a desire to dispose of the premises. There was an offer made but that was not accepted and later on the landlord agreed and permitted the defendants to carry out repairs and to deduct the expenses from the Rent payable. 5] Some arrangement was pleaded with regard to the tenure of the applicant and the rent to be charged. 6] However, the lower appellate court has observed that the applicant 3 – defendant No.1 carried out extensive changes and that is something which the law does not permit them to do so. The lower appellate court has adverted to the oral and documentary evidence. It has referred to the letter dated 12th August 1966 of the Corporation calling upon the original plaintiffs to carry out repairs. The letter has been referred to in extenso and the Courts below have concluded that the works carried out were not in accordance with the contents of this letter but much beyond the same. The works carried out were far in excess of the notice and this is proved by the respondents, is the conclusion. The admissions in the evidence of the applicant have been referred to and specifically that the applicant did not apply to the Municipal Corporation for permission. Thus, the courts below have held that the works carried out by the applicant were without written consent of the landlord and also of the Corporation. The legal position referred to by the lower appellate court is well settled. The lower appellate court has adverted to the fact that the works carried out cannot be termed as tenantable repairs. 7] As far as damages to the property are concerned, the Courts below have concurrently held that earlier the first floor was used as one unit and there was no wall or partition. The position at site now is that on the first 4 floor, dividing partition has been put and cabins have been erected. Each of the defendants are in exclusive possession of the cabins having door and locking system. Thus, by constructing cabins and enclosing open passage on the first floor the applicants have increased load on the first floor. The entire flooring has been changed. This extensive works have caused damage and wastage to the property is also proved. 8] Such being the concurrent findings of fact based on oral and documentary evidence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The courts below have applied the correct legal tests and I conclude that the decree for possession passed under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1957 is not vitiated in any manner. Once, there is no issue of jurisdiction nor there is any substance in the pleas raised so as to demonstrate material irregularity resulting in manifest injustice, then, revision application cannot be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)