(1.) BY this petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below under the Bombay Rent Act holding that the Petitioner who is a tenant, has raised permanent construction which has altered the suit premises. The allegation which is held to have been proved by both the Courts below is that the tenant has constructed a loft in suit premises. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, have recorded the findings of fact that the landlord has established that the tenant has without his permission, erected cement concrete loft in the suit premises.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the landlord has not led any evidence to show that the tenant has erected the cement concrete loft. The learned counsel submitted that the appellate Court has confirmed finding recorded by the trial Court that drawing an adverse inference against the tenant because he did not permit the Commissioner appointed to inspect the premises to enter the premises.
(3.) IN the result, petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.