1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7219 of 2007 Mr.Prakash N. Putti & ors. .. Petitioners versus Mr.Kishore S. Sangam .. Respondent ... Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 14th July 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. I see no reason to depart from the ultimate conclusion reached by the court below which is based on concurrent finding of facts. It is not necessary to burden this order in relation to a ground of default which has been accepted by the two courts below. In my opinion, the decree of eviction against the petitioner in any case will have to be upheld on 2 the ground that petitioner was responsible for carrying out the permanent construction and alterations in the suit premises without prior permission of the landlord. On that aspect both the courts below have considered the relevant material on record and opined that the landlord has established the fact that the tenant jointly and in conspiracy demolished in all 5 moris situated on ground, first and second floors besides one old wall was demolished and new wall has been erected in its place. All this has been done without the prior permission and consent of the landlord. 3. The argument of the petitioner that the courts below have placed the burden on the tenant is completely misplaced. The courts below have, in the first place found as of fact that the case made out by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged. That case clearly leads to inevitable finding. That permanent construction and alterations in the suit premises has been effected by the tenant. The fact that the court below has also observed that the defendant has not been able to show that the work carried out was minor and not permanent construction does not mean that even the initial onus was placed upon the petitioner tenant. The argument of the petitioner that the litigant should not suffer for 3 the mistake of the advocate also is an argument of desperation. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the trial court of no written statement has been allowed to attain finality. 4. Taking an overall view of the matter therefore, no fault can be found with the ultimate conclusion of the two courts below of ordering eviction of the petitioner tenants in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)