PUSHPALATA PARSHRAM BORUKAR Vs. MADHAVLAL N PITTIE ESQUIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Perused the records. No case for proceeding against the respondent No. 2. The petition as regards the respondent No. 2 is concerned, the same is rejected in limine. Rale. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith,

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, on 8th July, 2004 in Appeal No. 156 of 2004 whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 27th august, 2003 passed in R. A. E. Suit No. 271/307 of 1981. The eviction suit was filed on three grounds, viz. (i) commission of waste and damage to the suit premises, (ii) carrying out additions and alterations of permanent nature and (iii) unlawful subletting of the premises. Both the Courts below, on detail analysis of the materials on record, have arrived at the concurrent findings on the said issues and, therefore, undoubtedly in the absence of finding being either perverse or contrary to the materials on record, there can be no case for interference in the impugned judgment in writ jurisdiction.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the petitioners had strenuously argued the point regarding absence of authority to the person, who had verified the pleadings in the plaint filed in the suit. However, perusal of the impugned judgments discloses that the courts below were satisfied about the due compliance of the provisions of law relating to the rules of verification. Attention was sought to be drawn to the decision in the matter of Raj Kumar Dhar and Ors. v. Colonel A. Stuart Lewis, reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 104 and in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Smt. Shashi Kala Sharma and Ors. , reported in 1989 (1)Current Civil Cases 367.