R B KALYANPUR Vs. RAMCHANDRA MULCHAND THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 23.12.1983 passed by the Extra Joint Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.503 of 1982. That appeal was filed by the present petitioner challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30th March, 1982 passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune in Suit No.1303 of 1977. That suit was filed by the present respondents claiming therein, that they are owners of House No.573/3, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-4, and that, one room admeasuring 12' x 12' on the second floor of the building is let out to the petitioner. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant, on the ground that the tenant has not been using the suit premises for the purpose for which they were let out to him, for a period of six months preceding the filing of the suit. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant has not been using the suit premises since 1975 and they were kept locked. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the suit premises. The Commissioner was also examined as a witness. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded the finding in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) When the petition was called for final hearing, none appeared for the petitioner and none appeared for the respondents. I have gone through the record of the case. I find that it was the case of the landlord that since 1975, the suit premises are kept locked and are not being used by the tenant. I further find that a Commissioner was appointed by the Court for inspecting the suit premises. The Commissioner, after inspecting the suit premises, has submitted his report. The Commissioner in his report, has noted that utensils for daily use were not found in the suit premises, and that, the key of the said room was with the neighbouring tenant. The Commissioner proved his report when he was examined as witness No.2. The Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record and on the basis of that evidence, have recorded concurrent finding of the fact that the tenant has left the suit premises, and is not using the same for the purpose of residence since 1975. I find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on the evidence on record and therefore, they do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.