1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.804 OF 2007 WITH C.A.S. 1275 OF 2003 Fariddin Ghundulal Bagwan Appellant vs. Mohamadali Babulal Bagwan Respondent Mr.Kailash Sawant for Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 30th April, 2008 P.C. This second Appeal is filed by the original defendants as both the Courts, after considering the material placed on record by the parties, concluded that the plaintiff has proved that his father had taken the suit property on rent from Shri Pise prior to 40 years and this proves his possession over the suit property as tenant and as plaintiff proved obstruction by defendant, decreed the suit and defendants restrained from causing any sort of obstruction to the peaceful possession over the suit property. 2. The Appellant failed to prove that defendant’s father had taken the suit property on rent in 1944. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant that there is 2 concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts yet tried to pursue this court that the said findings so arrived at are perverse. After going through the reasoning given by the courts below and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that all the relevant documents have been taken note of by the courts below as reproduced in para 16 by the trial court. The Appellate Court has confirmed the said reasoning and specially by holding that the plaintiff has proved that he is the tenant of the suit premises. This itself means that the reasoning so given by the trial court based on the material has been accepted. Having once comes to a clear conclusion, there is no reason to interfere with the findings so arrived at by the courts below merely because on the basis of Shop and Establishment licence. 4. Having once come to a clear conclusion, I see there is no case made out by the Appellant to interfere with the said findings which cannot be said to be perverse. 5. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, C.A. No.1275/2003 also stands dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]