LAWS(GJH)-2000-2-75

MANILAL ABHAJI Vs. SWAMI VAISHVACHARYA GURA

Decided On February 18, 2000
MANILAL ABHAJI Appellant
V/S
SWAMI VAISHVACHARYA GURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the defendant-original tenant, who was sued by the original landlord for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent of more than six months under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act after appreciating the evidence on record and concluding that all the conditions for application of section 12(3)(a) were satisfied. The defendant-tenant thereupon preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by upholding all the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. Hence the present revision.

(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 the revisions arising under section 29(2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Others Vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai [1998(2) GLH 736 = AIR 1998 SC 3325], while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyad Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri [ AIR 1987 SC 1782], 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.) The first contention sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the tenant is that the suit notice at Exh.29, which is a statutory notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, is not a notice of demand within the meaning of the said section.