1 26.wp-282-97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 282 OF 1997. Munnar Lutavan Yadav. ..Petitioner. vs. Shivlagan R. Giri & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Mandar Limaye, for Petitioner. .... CORAM : G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2011. P.C. : Heard Mr. Limaye and perused record. 2. In the Suit for eviction, on an appreciation of evidence on record, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the land is not owned by the Plaintiff, the person who created alleged right in favour of the Plaintiff by another Lease Deed was himself not the owner and had lost in the litigation till High Court against MIDC and that the super-structure was not constructed by the Plaintiff. The Appellate Court has also recorded the finding that the super- structure was not constructed by the Plaintiff and the land was owned by the Government/ Public Authority. 3. Mr. Limaye however contends that while the Trial Court dismissed the Suit relying on section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971; that finding has been reversed by the Appellate Court and the Suit is dismissed on the ground that there is no 2 26.wp-282-97 relationship of Landlord and Tenant. Even accepting the said submission for the sake of argument, it cannot be overlooked that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the relationship of the Landlord and Tenant does not exist, which has also been recorded by the Appellate Court. In any case, once the Respondent was able to prove the ownership of the super-structure and once it was found that Petitioner does not have any right in respect of the said land; no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the two Courts. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, in fact, taking a contrary view is not possible and even if it is possible, the same cannot be substituted for a possible finding recorded by the two Courts. 4. The Writ Petition is summarily rejected. [ G.S. GODBOLE, J. ]