ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. This appeal is by the defendants. The trial court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants. The same was affirmed by the District Judge in appeal. The High Court, exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court committed an error in reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded as regards the permanent construction said to have been put up by the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions in support of the impugned order. He invited our attention to Section 13(1)(b) of the Act to contend that permanent construction was made by the defendants without a consent in writing. He added that as of today permanent constructions are there on the disputed property. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel pleads that the impugned order may not be interfered with. 7. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, having due regard to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below, in our view, the High Court was not right in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact. This was not a case where the findings of fact recorded by two courts below were based on no evidence or there was any misreading or non-consideration of any material evidence. Under the circumstances, the High Court committed an error in reversing the concurrent findings of fact, that too exercising revisional jurisdiction. This being the position, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 8. No costs. 9. However, this order does not come in the way of the respondents taking appropriate action in accordance with law based on any further cause of action.