1cra-689-08 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 689 OF 2008 IN APPEAL No. 137 OF 2007 Rold Gold Articles Industries. .. Petitioners. Orig.Defendants. vs. Smt. Julie L. Gomes. .. Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 690 of 2008 IN APPEAL No. 136 of 2007 Hiraben C. Soni and Ors. .. ..Petitioners. vs. Smt. Julie L. Gomes .. .. Respondent. Ms Prachi Khandke i/b Shri M.P. Vashi and Asso., for the Petitioners. CORAM:A.R.JOSHI,J DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 2cra-689-08 1. Rule returnable forthwith in both the Civil Revision Applications which are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners-orignal defendants. In both the Civil Revision Applications two different judgments of the first Appellate Court are challenged by which the decree passed by the Trial Court in two different civil suits were upheld.As such, there are concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court on the issue of non user of the tenanted premises let out to the petitioners – original defendants. 3. Both the original suits were filed by the land lord for recovery of possession of two adjacent tenanted premises given to one company by name Rold Gold Articles Industries. The said suits were filed on the premise that both the premises were kept vacant since December, 1992 till the filing of the suits. Apparently, both the premises were let out for running the same manufacturing unit/factory. However, admittedly, and even as per the Court Commissioner’s report, both the premises were in deserted condition and locked and having the deserted look with big holes in the walls and some old rusted machinery lying in the premises. The Court Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit premises on the application of the defendants and in fact no objection 3cra-689-08 was raised against the observations of the Court Commissioner. Both the Courts below put reliance on the said factual position as to deserted and unused look of the tenanted premises. It is significant to note that the defendants did not lead any evidence even by filing an affidavit or by examining any witness. Only there was cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff. 4. In view of the above and in view of the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court while upholding the decrees of eviction, in the opinion of this Court, there is no legal necessity to interfere in the said judgments and orders in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, both the Civil Revision Applications must fail and they are hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Interim orders, if any shall stand vacated. (A.R.JOSHI,J)