ABDUL LATIF YUSUF SHAIKH Vs. DIGAMBAR MAHADEO BOHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate Mr.Patil for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Khandeparkar for the respondent. Petitioner is the tenant and Respondent is the landlord/owner of the residential property. The respondent/owner filed proceedings for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of bonafide need. The petitioner's case is that he purchased the suit house consisting of four tenements and started eviction proceedings against all the tenants because he requires the premises for his bonafide need and occupation. So far as his case against the present petitioner/tenant is concerned, the trial Court i.e. the Civil Judge Junior Division, Kudal dismissed the suit by the judgment and order dated 22nd March 1984. The respondent/plaintiff had filed an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi. The said appeal was allowed and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. It is against this judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi, the present petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant.

(2.) Admittedly, this is a writ petition and not the first appeal. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, contended that the jurisdiction of the Court exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdiction of the Court exercising the powers as First Appellate Court are bound to be different. The First Appellate Court has all the powers to appreciate the evidence afresh and come to a different conclusion. But according to him, when exercising writ jurisdiction, the petitioner in such case must point out that there is a perversity in the judgment or the error manifested on record.

(3.) The advocate for the petitioner/tenant firstly contended that the respondent/landlord was not at all in need of any premises. He tried to point out that the landlord was in the habit of purchasing the premises even though they were occupied by different tenants; then sale those premises, may be at higher price, and even though on the date of filing of the application or suit for eviction against the present petitioner/tenant, the respondent/landlord was himself living in tenanted premises. The need of the respondent/landlord was not genuine nor bonafide. The advocate for the petitioner took me through the evidence of the plaintifff/landlord in this regard.