ASHOK VITHAL CHAVAN Vs. BABURAO SAKHARAM BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Pune dated 12th April, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 290 of 1994.

(2.) THE petitioners are landlords in respect of one shop premises situated at 936, Shukrawar Peth, Pune. The respondent is a monthly tenant in the suit premises. The petitioners instituted the suit before the Court of Small Causes Court at Pune, being Civil Suit No. 400 of 1989 for possession of the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 13 (1) (g) as well as non user of the suit premises within the meaning of section 13 (1) (k) and the tenant having acquired suitable premises under section 13 (1) (l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("bombay Rent Act" in brief ). The trial Court on analysing the materials on record dismissed the suit by order dated 11th August, 1994 and answered all the points against the petitioners. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the District Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 290 of 1994. The Appellate Court more or less affirmed the view taken by the trial Court and confirmed the conclusion reached by the trial Court on all the three grounds referred to above. Thus, the Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal by order dated 12th April, 1996. This concurrent view taken by the two courts is the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below have not properly analysed the evidence on record. According to him, the reasoning of the trial Court is wholly inappropriate, for the trial Court has not analysed the efficacy of the entire evidence which has come on record but has merely reproduced the same and recorded its conclusion to answer the issues against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, even the Appellate Court has considered matters which were not germane for deciding the issues. On this basis, the findings recorded by the two courts below with regard to the ground of bona fide requirement is being assailed. In so far as the ground of non user of the suit premises under section 13 (1) (k) of the Act is concerned, it is contended that the Appellate Court having recorded a clear finding that the respondent-tenant had failed to use the suit premises for a period of six months preceding the date of the institution of that suit was in error in dismissing the suit. Whereas, it ought to have decreed the suit on that count.