spb/- 1 cra688-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2009 Tanaji Ramchandra Mahadik ... Applicant/Petitioner. Vs. Miss Sushila Pundalik Kadam & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr.P.S. Dani i/by J.P. Thakkar for the Applicant. Mr. A.V. Chatuphale for the Respondent No. 1. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 03rd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the revision applicant & the respondent no.1. 2 The resivion application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the trial court, dismissing the suit of the applicant for a declaration that he was a tenant/sub-tenant in respect of the suit premises and the decision of the Appellate Bench confirming the said decision. 3 The husband of respondent was the owner of the business of a hair cutting saloon which he was carrying out in a rental premises. After spb/- 2 cra688-09.sxw the death of her husband, the respondent no. 1 continued the business and subsequently, gave the business to a third party under a business conducting agreement. After termination of the business conducting agreement with the third party, the respondent no. 1 entered into a business conducting agreement with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant started contending that he was a sub-tenant of the suit premises and the business conducting agreement was in fact an agreement of sub-tenancy. He accordingly filed a suit for a declaration that he was a tenant of the respondent no.1. The trial court after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit and the lower appellate court confirmed the said decision. 4 That decision is impugned by the present civil revision application. The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the original agreement specifically states that it was a business conducting agreement. The courts below have also noted that the business was running at the time when the business conducting agreement was entered into and the entire assets of the business including tools required for running of the hair cutting saloon were handed over to the applicant. The license of business continued in the name of the respondent no.1. Both the courts below have, on appreciation of spb/- 3 cra688-09.sxw evidence, came to the conclusion that it was a business conducting agreement and not an agreement of tenancy. The finding of fact recorded by the two courts below is a possible finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5 Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]