MAHADEVO MURLIDHAR AMBEKAR Vs. PADMINI V JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Writ Petition directed against the Judgment dated 31.1.1995 in Regular Civil Appeal No.271 of 1991 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Solapur. Heard both the sides.

(2.) IT appears the original landlord Venkatesh filed an eviction suit against the Petitioner and Respondents Nos.4 and 5. Venkatesh died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on record who are Respondents Nos.1 and 3 in this Writ Petition. The tenants contested the suit. After trial, the trial Court allowed eviction suit only on one ground namely, that the act of the tenant amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The trial Court rejected the other two grounds. The tenants challenged the eviction decree by filing an appeal before the District Court. The Landlords also challenged the adverse findings against them regarding the other two grounds by filing cross-objections. After hearing both the sides, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the Appeal filed by the tenants and allowed the cross-objections of the Landlords by recording finding that the requirement of the landlords is bona fide and reasonable and that the tenant has made permanent construction without the written consent of the Landlord. Therefore, one of the tenants namely, the original second Defendant has come up with this Writ Petition.

(3.) AS far as the grounds for eviction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Rent Act, the Landlords' case was that the tenants are using the premises for gambling activity where playing cards are going on and therefore it causes nuisance and annoyance. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that this ground has been made out. Both the Courts have considered the evidence of the Plaintiff, one neighbour, the report of the Commissioner, the panchanama and the fact that Criminal Case had been booked against the tenant for gambling activity in the suit premises. It is on the basis of the appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have given concurrent findings that nuisance and annoyance are made within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of these concurrent findings. I am afraid this Court cannot be expected to reappreciate the evidence and take a different view in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is purely a question of fact based on appreciation of evidence. The fact that the playing cards with stakes of money has been going on cannot be disputed in the face of evidence before the Court. It may be that the tenant was acquitted in the criminal case; but proof in a Civil Court is of a different degree than a criminal case, where a fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the premises was raided by the Police on the ground of gambling and the accused had been booked and in the face of findings on the other evidence available on record it cannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any illegality or infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court.