GOWARDHANDAS VISHNUDAS GANDHI Vs. MOHAMMED HANIF HAJIGULAM ATAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Satara dated 6th October, 1986 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1984.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the landlord in respect of the property bearing House No. 266, Bhavani Peth, Satara city. The Respondents are heirs of original tenant/original Respondent. The Respondents are monthly tenants of the business premises situated on the first floor of the said property at monthly rent of Rs. 18/ - plus education cess. According to the Petitioner the Respondents failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from 31.12.1975 onwards continuously for more than 6 months. Consequently, the petitioner issued suit notice to the original tenant dated 27.9.1978 thereby terminating the tenancy of the Respondents by end of October 1978. In spite of the said notice the tenant did not offer the demanded rent nor raised any dispute regarding the standard rent application within one month but denied that he was in arrears. The tenant on the other hand claimed that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 5.000/ - with the Petitioner on 19th February, 1974, pursuant to the agreement between them that the said amount would be adjusted towards the monthly rent. Since the tenant refused to vacate the premises, the Petitioner eventually filed Civil Suit No. 532 of 1978 before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Satara for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the suit property against the tenant on the ground of default and personal bona fide requirement. The said suit was resisted by the tenant. The parties went to trial and adduced evidence - both oral and documentary in support of their respective claims. The Trial Court after considering the material on record was pleased to dismiss the suit preferred by the Petitioner on both the counts.

(3.) IT is against the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, it is well settled that the High Court should be slow in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. However, for the reasons more elaborately recorded in the latter part of this judgment, I think, this is one case, where interference with the orders passed by the Lower Courts is called for to remove the manifest injustice which has occasioned.