( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 897 OF 2005 Makbul Ahmed Abdul Rauf Since deceased, by L.Rs. Sugarabai Makbul Ahmed & others PETITIONERS VERSUS Abdul Vase Haji Mohd. Ayyub RESPONDENT ..... Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.V. Wani, advocate holding for Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th March, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge concurrent judgements rendered by the Civil Court and the first Appellate Court whereby their suit for eviction (R.C.S. No. 715/1982) came to be dismissed. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel and on going through the judgements of both the Courts, it is manifest that the eviction was sought by the petitioners ( 2 ) on the ground that they bonafidely require the suit shop for purpose of contemplated business of the plaintiff No. 3 (petitioner No.3). They also submitted that the respondent became willful defaulter due to non-payment of rent for more than six months. Both the Courts below have negatived contentions of the petitoners on appreciation of evidence. 3. It appears that the petitioners purchased the house property on 15th December, 1976 from the previous owner by name Chiraguddin Fayajuddin Munshi under a registered sale-deed. The respondent produced various rent receipts which are at Exh-187, Exh-192, Exh-197 to Exh-211, Exh-212 to Exh-241, Exh-191, Exh-242, Exh-297, Exh-298, Exh-189 and Exh-199. The rent receipts indicate that the respondent paid the rent to the earlier landlord and that subsequently, the respondent tendered the rent to the plaintiffs but they did not accept the same. The plaintiffs did not issue notice pertaining to attornment of the tenancy. The respondent produced various money order receipts in order to show that attempt was made to tender the rent, but all the ( 3 ) money orders were refused by the petitioners. It has come on the record that a part of the house property was alienated by the plaintiffs during pendency of the litigation. Consequently, inference was drawn by the Courts below that the bonafide requirement was absent because otherwise such kind of sale transaction would not have been effected, keeping aside the requirement shown by the petitioners. The findings rendered by both the Courts are purely findings of facts. There appears no perversity in the manner of appreciation of the evidence and as such, this is not a fit case to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp897-05