In the judgment dated 22.09.2000, the first appellate companyrt, after re appreciating the whole evidence, came to the companyclusion that In my opinion the evidence that had been presented before the subordinate companyrt, the subordinate companyrt has number made any mistake in companying to the companyclusion that the tenant has made structural changes in the rented accommodation.
Later walls were companystructed sheets were put and were taken into use as shop and godown.
Perversity has been the subject matter of umpteen number of decisions of this Court.
The disputed plot was taken on rent.
Aggrieved, the landlord is before us in the civil appeal.
