ORDER

1. All the three courts below have held that the appellants-tenant has put up a permanent structure without the consent of the landlord. As a result, he is liable to be evicted under Section 13(l)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. However, in assailing this finding, what is argued is that the appellants are a trust running a school for girls. Secondly, having regard to the finding of the appellants in relation to comparative hardship, the eviction decree could be interfered with, more so, if regard is had to the totality of circumstances. In support of this submission, Mr Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants relies on Rajender Kumar v. Jamna Das Kotewala, (1990) 4 SCC 15) wherein this Court had denied eviction in favour of the landlord directing that a higher rent be paid. Therefore, this Court according to him, under Article 136, is not powerless to interfere.

2. We have carefully considered the above submissions of learned counsel. We are unable to accept. It may be that the appellants are a trust running a school. Equally on the plea of comparative hardship as well a finding might have been rendered in favour of the appellants by