SARASWATI GANAPAT MANE Vs. SHARADCHANDRA NILKANTH KARKHANIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law indicated by paragraph Nos. 34, 36 and 43 of the appeal memo. Those points can be enumerated as mentioned hereinunder.

(2.) FEW facts need to be mentioned for unfolding the controversy. The appellant happens to be the owner of a tenement in Ambernath which was rented out to Dharmasi Morarji Chemical Company Ltd. , as tenant and in turn was allotted to respondent to stay. There was marriage of the son of landlady in the month of February 1988 and, therefore, according to the averments made by the landlady, the present appellant, the respondent handed over the vacant possession of the suit tenement to her on 5. 2. 1988 and not on 3. 1. 1988 as averred by the appellant (original plaintiff) along with surrendering the tenancy. The respondent admitted that the possession of the said tenement was handed over to the landlady for accommodating her need in respect of the marriage of her son. He denied that he ever surrendered the tenancy. On the contrary, he averred that he had lodged a complaint in the police station in respect of the said unlawful ousting of him from the suit tenement. The evidence on record shows tat in context wit the said complaint the son of landlady was arrested and panchanama was prepared in respect of the articles which were found by police after the said complaint was investigated into. There was a bundle found in the suit tenement which was belonging to the respondent.

(3.) THE appellant had contended that the said vacant possession of the suit premises was handed over to her by the respondent on 3. 1. 1988 in presence of two witnesses (1) Krishnarao Patil and (2) Shankar Shivram Chalke, who were residing in the same building. Shri Krishnarao Patil was examined as a witness by the landlady. However, said Chalke was not examined as a witness though the affidavits of both of them were filed by the appellant in support of her contentions.