DR. SAKHARAM DINKAR PATWARDHAN Vs. SHANKAR KONDO KALEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Shimpi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3/1 to 3/3 i.e. the contesting Respondents.

(2.) The challenge in this Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the Petitioner, who is the original tenant is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Decree dtd. 29/2/1996 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No.415 of 1989. The challenge in said Civil Appeal No. 415 of 1989 was to the Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/3/1989 passed by learned II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1099 of 1980, by which the said Suit was dismissed. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dtd. 29/2/1996, the Appeal is partly allowed by passing partial eviction decree regarding only Block No.14 out of Suit premises being Block Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of Kalekar Building, Navi Peth, Solapur.

(3.) It is the submission of Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel that, although earlier the bonafide requirement mentioned as of all the Plaintiffs, however, during the pendency of the Suit, the plaint has been amended by adding paragraph 2(v) and paragraph Nos. 6(v) by which it has been brought on record that the partition has been effected between the Plaintiffs and as far as the Plaintiff No.3 is concerned, he has been allotted Block Nos. 7, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 22 of said Kalekar Building. He submitted that the entire basis of the case of Plaintiff No.3 is on the partition of the properties, however, said partition has not been proved and in any case, the same is challenged by filing Suit by one co-owner. He submitted that the said partition is malafide. He submitted that the Plaintiff No.3 has failed to prove bonafide requirement and therefore, the impugned decree of partial eviction should not have been passed. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court by giving cogent reasons has dismissed the suit and therefore the learned Appellate Court should not have interfered with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.