MOHANLAL Vs. MANDAKINI RAMCHANDRA SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

(2.) The decree of eviction recorded in Regular Civil Appeal No.79/2007 by the learned District Judge at Dhule, reversing the judgment of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 126/2004, is questioned by the tenant. On 9.3.2010, after hearing both the learned counsel, this Court inform to decide the appeal finally at admission stage and it was fixed to 17.6.2010. The matter was adjourned under several circumstances.

(3.) The controversy hinges on finding recorded by learned Principal District Judge, Dhule, holding default by the applicant in terms of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the statutory notice could be a proper service required under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 1999. The landlord came with a case that the suit notice dated 7.10.2003 was served. The tenant disputed the same by establishing that between the period from 8.10.2003 to 17.10.2003 he was not at Dhule and consequently, the notice dated 7.10.2003 could not be served upon him. Alleged service on his son was denied. Evidence of P. W.2 Shaligram, Postman, was scanned by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule and did not believe his assertion of having served the notice to son of the tenant Mukesh. The reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division are in tune with the evidence of the tenant coupled by contrary pleadings of the landlord, which incorporate as under: