JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 20th January, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1992 on the file of 3rd Additional District Judge, Solapur. Heard both the sides. 2. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on three grounds. After trial, the trial Court accepted all the three grounds and granted an order of eviction. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge who concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order, the tenant has come up with this writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned judgments. It was argued that the landlord has failed to make out any of the three grounds and the order of eviction is bad. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order of eviction. 4. The main ground of eviction is one of personal occupation made by the landlord. The landlords case is that he is running a tea shop in a hand-cart and he has purchased the present suit premises and he wants to run a tea stall in the suit premises. After recording evidence, both the courts have held that the landlord has proved his bonafide requirement. Then on the question of hardship also the findings are recorded by both the courts against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. When the landlord is running a tea stall in a hand-cart and when he has purchased the suit premises for conducting his business, by no stretch of imagination the landlords bonafides can be doubted. Anyhow, both the courts below have taken into consideration the materials on record and recorded concurrent findings of fact against the tenant and in favour of the landlord on the question of bonafide requirement. This Court while hearing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be expected to reappreciate the evidence and take a different view. It may be that the judgment of the appellate Court is not very accurate. It has not formulated the points for determination correctly. However, the appellate Court has considered the evidence briefly and has agreed with the findings of the trial Court. The trial Court has given considered opinion on all the issues. It may be that the judgment of the appellate Court is not very accurate. It has not formulated the points for determination correctly. However, the appellate Court has considered the evidence briefly and has agreed with the findings of the trial Court. The trial Court has given considered opinion on all the issues. Even after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, I do not find that any illegality had been committed by both the courts below in granting eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. 5. As far as the ground of permanent structure is concerned, the materials on record show that the tenant has cut off projected teak wood rafters in front of the shop and has also constructed a cement wall. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below on this point. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to some authorities and contended that this construction does not amount to a permanent structure. In the very nature of things, the question whether a structure is a permanent structure or not is a question of fact to be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Since both the courts have come to the conclusion that the disputed structure is a permanent structure, I do not want to interfere with that finding particularly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. As far as the third ground is concerned, the allegation is about change of user of the shop. It is alleged that the tenant had taken the shop for cloth business and now in addition to cloth business, sons of the tenant are selling electronic goods. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is on a strong footing when he contends that the alleged user does not amount to change of user of the shop within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act. He also invited my attention to some decisions on this point. However, I need not go into this aspect of the matter since even if the decree for eviction on the ground of change of user is bad in law, it will be purely academic since the tenants challenge to the eviction on other two grounds cannot stand. 7. It was also argued that both the courts have not considered the question of partial eviction. 7. It was also argued that both the courts have not considered the question of partial eviction. This point has not been canvassed in the trial Court or in the appellate Court. It is true that courts are under a statutory obligation to consider the question of partial eviction so as to meet the requirement of the parties. But the parties will have to adduce evidence on this point to invite a finding by the Court on this point. Further we are concerned with a single room shop. The question of partial eviction, therefore, does not arise. It is only in the case of number of rooms or number of compartments, the question of granting one or more to the landlord could have been considered. But such a situation does not arise in this case. 8. At the close of hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the tenant offered that his client is prepared to give a portion of 5 ft. x 10 ft. in the suit shop by putting a partition wall and putting a door at his cost for the use of the landlord or in the alternative the tenant is prepared to put up a first floor room on the existing suit premises at his cost and give the same to the landlord for his use. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord replied that this suggestion is not acceptable. 9. In the result, the writ petition is rejected at the admission stage. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant prays for three months time in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court and if he fails to obtain the orders from the Supreme Court he would vacate on the expiry of three months. The learned Counsel for the respondent says no objections provided the petitioner and other members of his family give an undertaking to this effect. The learned Counsel for the respondent says no objections provided the petitioner and other members of his family give an undertaking to this effect. The order of eviction passed by the courts below is hereby stayed for a period of three months from today, subject to the petitioner and other adult members of his family filing an undertaking within a period of two weeks from today undertaking to vacate the suit premises on expiry of three months from today unless they get a stay order from the Supreme Court and subject to paying the rent regularly and subject to not parting with possession in favour of others nor to create third party rights. C.C. expedited. Petition dismissed. *****