1 (CRA173.10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2010 Club of Savordem ....Applicants. V/s Smt. Jyotiben Bhuralal .....Respondent. Mr. D.A. Joseph i/b M/s. David & Associates for applicants. Mr. P.S. Dani with Mrs. Sharvari Shailendra for respondent. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 4th July, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Applicants are the original Defendant No.2 who claim to be tenant of the suit premises. A suit was filed by Respondents/Plaintiff who is the original landlord for eviction on various grounds. In the plaint, it was alleged that Defendant No.1 was the tenant of the suit premises and that there was change of user and Defendant No.1 had sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is a Club. At the time when the suit was filed, the said Club was 2 (CRA173.10) unregistered Club. The main purpose of the Club, according to the Defendant No.2, was to acquire premises for residence of their members in Bombay. Defendant No.2 in their Written Statement contended that they are tenants of the suit premises since inception of the tenancy. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal and passed an order of eviction. 3 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants/original Defendant No.2 submitted that though Defendant No.2 had brought on record several documents, the said documents have not been properly appreciated. It is submitted that there are rent receipts which were issued by the original landlord which show that Defendant No.1 was a tenant as manager of Defendant No.2. It is submitted that the said documents have been brought on record. It is also submitted that though the Plaintiff was called upon to produce the conveyance deed by which they have purchased the said property in 1983, the said document was not produced. It is submitted that, in the said document, name of Defendant No.2 has been shown as tenant in the list of tenants annexed to the conveyance deed. It is also submitted that the water tax was paid by Defendant No.2 and receipts were issued in favour of Defendant No.2. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court for not accepting the submissions 3 (CRA173.10) of the Applicants herein. 4. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court. While exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate court and substitute the view which is taken by the lower Appellate Court by its own view. After having perused the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court, in my view, there is no infirmity in the reasons given by that Court and I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of record committed by the lower Appellate Court. 5. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. Three months’ time is given to the Applicants to vacate the premises, subject to filing of usual undertaking. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (CRA173.10)