PRABHAVATI ISHWARDAS Vs. HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJ DHIRAJ MIRZA MAHARAO MADANSINGHJI VIJAYSINGHJI SAVAI BAHADUR MAHARAO OF CUTCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the original defendant is preferred against the concurrent decree passed by the two courts below in favour of the plaintiff in his suit for arrears and possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) Claim for possession was based on ground that the petitioner defendant had remained in arrears of rent for a period of more than six month. Notice of demand under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was served upon the defendant. Even so the arrears were not paid nor any reply sent. No tender was made nor any dispute raised nor any standard rent application filed. Suit was filed in the year 1966. One is now in 1982. At one stage the said suit was decreed ex parte due to default of the defendant. The ex parte order was, however, subsequently set aside and the suit was tried and heard on merits. On merits also the trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Defendants against the said decree failed. Hence this petition.

(3.) Hearing the rival submissions of the respective Counsels and going through the impugned judgments of the two courts below, I do not find this to be a case for interference in this courts writ jurisdiction. Both the courts below have considered all the relevant pros and cons of the matter have taken into account the relevant facts and circumstances and have, for goods reasons and on cogent material, come to a concurrent finding of fact against the defendant. This is not a case justifying interference with the concurrent decrees is ones writ jurisdiction.