/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4479 OF 1991 Ramchandra Sadashiv Bhat since deceased through his L'Rs 1. Smt. Vijayalaxmi Ramchandra Bhat & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Abhay Narayan Mhaskar since deceased his legal heirs 1 Ruta Abhay Mhaskar & Anr. ...Respondents Shri.S.N. Chandrachud for Petitioners. Shri.Jaydeep Deo i/b. Mrs.Suhasini Mutalik for Respondents. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 18th JANUARY, 2008. P.C:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. Petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in respect of suit premises ad-measuring about 50 sq.ft. which was given on rent to the Respondent No.1/Tenant. It is case of the / 2 / Petitioners that they required said premises for constructing toilet block. The Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have recorded concurrent finding that bonafide requirement for construction of toilet block has not been established by the landlord and therefore, suit was dismissed and Appeal was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that said area ad- measuring 50 sq. ft. is the only place where toilet block can be constructed. He submitted, therefore, that both the Courts below erred in holding that landlord had alternative premises available with him for the construction of toilet block. 4. It is not possible to accept this submission in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003)6 SCC page 675. The Apex Court has observed in para 12 as under:- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, / 3 / therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an appellate court and step into reappreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court.” 5. Keeping in view principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, it is not possible to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the both the Courts below. No case is made out for setting aside the orders of the Courts below. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.M. KANADE, J.