1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.48 OF 2008 Pravinchandra Dahu Mokal .... Applicant V/s. Dattatreya Mangesh Tendulkar and Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, for the applicant. Mr.D.S.Mhaispuarkar, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 P.C. 1. This revision application is preferred under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, by which the applicant who is original defendant No.1, has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Ad-Hoc District Judge – II, Raigad-Alibag, in Civil Appeal No.44 of 2003, by which the learned Ad-Hoc District Jude – II, has confirmed the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Roha, in Regular Civil Suit No.52 of 1993. 2. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed against the present applicant as well as against respondent No.2 on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the grounds of bonafide requirement and subletting of the suit premises. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, passed a decree on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement. However, allegations 2 regarding the sub-tenancy was turned down by the learned Trial Judge. 3. Against the said judgment and decree, the present appellant filed an appeal bearing No.44 of 2003. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge – II, dismissed the said appeal by its judgment and order dated 30-10-2006 with costs. The learned appellate Judge found that the plaintiff has defaulted rent for six months. The learned appellate Judge has also found that the trial Court has rightly found that the plaintiff has proved his case about bonafide requirement. It is also held that greater hardship would cause to the plaintiff rather than defendants if the decree for eviction is refused. The appellate Judge accordingly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. 4. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge – II, as well as judgment passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court as well as appellate Court have appreciated the evidence and found that the plaintiff has proved his case about bonafide requirement. This is being a finding of fact, the same cannot be re- appreciated by this Court in its limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiff has proved his case about arrears of rent against the defendants. The learned counsel for the applicant, is not in a position to point out any error of law much less any error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders of the Courts below. The 3 Powers under Section 115 of C.P.C., are very limited and even if there is a error of fact, this Court cannot correct it. This Court cannot interfere with the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the subordinate Courts in its limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since no interim relief was granted earlier, decree was already executed and the original plaintiff is already put in possession of the suit premises. The learned counsel for the respondent has also confirmed the said aspect. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any substance in the civil revision application. It is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)