SHYAMSUNDAR CHANDMAL ZANWAR Vs. GULABRAOJI TUKARAMJI MASKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 9th March, 2016, this Court had passed an order as under;

(2.) Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the bonafide requirement has been established by the landlord. Shri Zinjarde, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the landlord is aged about 85 years and the need put forth is of the grand son, who is presently taking education. Neither the son nor the grand son has entered the witnessbox to depose the requirement by subjecting themselves to cross examination. He has invited my attention to the provision of Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, which states that the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. According to him, in view of the non examination of son or the grand son, an adverse inference is required to be drawn as contemplated by the said provision.

(3.) In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, no jurisdictional error is made out. The revision application is dismissed.