Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1128 of 2009 Ajitkumar Motilal Shah & ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Adityavikram Shishir Gandhi ...Respondent Mr. G.P.Malekar for the petitioners. Mr. Shashi K. Jain for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 05, 2009 : MARCH 05, 2009 : MARCH 05, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. No interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have concurrently answered the issue of non-user of the suit premises without sufficient cause by the tenants as alleged by the plaintiff. The Courts below have noted that defendants failed to establish the factum that they were infact using the suit premises for the purpose for which it were let out to them during the relevant time. Defendant failed to produce any record or Books of Accounts though they had enough opportunity to do so as noted by the Courts below. It is in that background, the Court having accepted the plea of the landlord has drawn adverse inference against the tenants to answer the issue against them. In that, the defendants failed to establish the fact that they were actually using the suit premises during the relevant period and that the 2 non-user,if any, was on account of sufficient cause. 3. In the circumstances, no interference with the said finding of fact is warranted. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of unlawful subletting as decree of eviction can be sustained on the ground of non-user for the aforesaid reasons. 4. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the suit itself was not maintainable having been filed by a minor. Both the Courts below have noted that the fact that when the suit was presented by the plaintiff on the relevant date, he was minor is an issue which will have to be proved by the defendants, however, the defendants failed to produce any material to substantiate their claim. The argument of the defendants was on the basis of Exhibit 75 which has been rightly turned down by the two Courts below on the finding that the same pertain to year 1986 and cannot be the basis to hold that the plaintiff was minor in the year 1993 when the suit was presented. No fault can be found with the said finding of fact. 5. Hence, this Petitions fails. The same is dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]