VRAJLAL RADIAL Vs. SHAH BALUBEN TALAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This is a revision under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, at the instance of the original tenant-defendant who was sued by the respondent-plaintiff-landlord for a decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.

(2.) . Before proceeding with the merits of the matter, it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with revisions arising under Sec. 29(2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Ors. v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, 1998 (2) GLH 736 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 3325 : 1999 (1) GLR 15 (SC), while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyad Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, AIR 1987 SC 1782 : 1987 (2) GLR 960 (SC), held that High Court cannot function as a Court of appeal, cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evidence recorded by the Courts below, and cannot interfere on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence, and cannot interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the Courts below are on the basis of no evidence at all, or are perverse. A different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because another view on the same set of facts may just be possible.

(3.) . Learned Counsel for the tenant submits that the judgment and decree of the trial Court for eviction as confirmed by the lower appellate Court is illegal and bad in law inasmuch as the suit notice issued under Sec. 12(2) of the Act is illegal, bad in law and void. For this purpose he relies upon the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Act read with Sec. 12(2) of the Act and relies upon a decision of this Court.