gst 1 cra361.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 361 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2009. M/s.Production Machines Mfg. Co. ... ...... Applicant. V/s Smt.Pushpa Shashikant Tanna & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr.Y.J.Master, Adv. For the applicant. Mr.Rajesh C. Shah, Adv. For R.Nos.1/2 and 1/4 CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 13th April, 2011 PC: By way of present revision the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu thereby dismissing the suit of the respondent and directing the defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Palghar dated 3.7.2006 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present applicant. It is the contention of the applicant that defendants 3 to 5 have become tenants by means of deed of assignment dated 10.11.89. The Courts below on the basis of evidence that was led before it have found that defendants have not produced any document on record or any list of stock in trade or machinery etc. along with the business as alleged to have been assigned. The Courts below have further found that the defendants have also failed to produce any evidence to show that on the date of assignment i.e. 10.11.89 the business of defendant No. 1 was actually running and that it was assigned to defendant No.3 as required under the proviso to section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. No perversity is noticed in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below to warrant interference. There is nothing to show that the jurisdiction which has gst 2 cra361.10.sxw been exercised by the Courts below has been exercised with material irregularity so as to warrant interference under section 115 of CPC. Revision application stands rejected. IN view of disposal of Civil Revision Application, Civil Application No.158/09 does not survive and same also stands disposed of.