ORDER
Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein is the landlord of the premises no. 1058, Shukarwar Peth, Pune. Admittedly, the respondent is the tenant in the ground floor of the premises. As far back in the year 1979, the respondent-tenant filed a suit for declaration as well for injunction before the small causes court at Pune. The said suit was numbered as civil suit no. 252/1979. The said suit was dismissed. The first appeal preferred against the judgment of the small causes court also met with the same fate. The respondent herein thereafter filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay. The writ petition was numbered as W.P.No. 4994/1936. In the year 1981, the appellant landlord filed a Suit for eviction against the respondent herein on the grounds of bona fide need, default in payment of rent and causing nuisance and annoyance. The judge, small causes court, decreed the suit by an order and judgment dated 25.6.1984 on the ground that the respondent has caused nuisance and annoyance. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Aggrieved, he preferred writ petition before the High Court of Bombay. The writ petition was numbered as writ petition no. 4384/1988. The High Court consolidated both the petitions and heard them together. In W.P. no. 4994/1986, the respondent filed an undertaking that hereinafter, he would not use the bathroom in the ground floor which was meant for exclusive use of the landlord. Writ petition no. 4994/1986 was allowed in terms of the undertaking. So far as writ petition no. 4384/1988 was concerned, the High Court after taking the view that since the tenant has already given an undertaking that he would not use bathroom and that the tenant has not caused any nuisance and annoyance, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed the order of eviction. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the landlord has preferred these appeals. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced two submissions. The first submission was that the suit filed by the respondent-tenant before the small causes court was not maintainable as none of the reliefs sought for in the suit arises out of the provisions of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rent Controls Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The second submission is that in any event of the matter, it was not permissible for the High Court to have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the courts below regarding nuisance and annoyance after re appreciating the evidence. At present, we are not inclined to go into the first question as the same is academic in view of the fact we are of opinion that these appeals deserve to be allowed on the second submission of the learned counsel it is no longer res integra that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the courts below by re-appreciating the evidence. In the present case, the judge, small causes court as well as the first appellate court have recorded the concurrent finding of fact that the Act on the part of the respondent-tenant constituted nuisance and annoyance which was made basis for eviction of the tenant from the, premises in dispute. The said finding of fact has not been shown to suffer from any legal infirmity. In that view of the matter, it was not open to the High Court to exercise the power under Article 227 to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the courts below. Further it was no' open to the High Court to obliterate the finding of fact regarding nuisance and annoyance caused by the tenant which was made basis for passing decree of eviction against the tenant merely by taking an undertaking from him that he would not in future Use the bathroom in the ground floor. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that these appeals deserve to be allowed. We, accordingly, set aside the common judgment under challenge. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the respondent stated that in case the respondent is required to vacate the premises immediately, it shall create great hardship to him. Therefore, some time may be granted to vacate the premises. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has no objection. We, therefore, grant time till 30.6.2002 to the respondent to vacate the premises on his filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. In the event, the undertaking is not filed, this part of our order shall stand automatically vacated and it will be open to the appellant to take proceedings for eviction of the respondent. .