CHHOTALAL MOHANLAL TRIVEDI Vs. UTTAMCHAND DAYARAM DUGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dt.6th July, 1984, passed by the Extra Asstt.Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.712 of 1979. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.21st September, 1979, passed by the III Addl.Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.1108 of 1976. That Civil Suit was filed by the Respondent claiming a declaration that he is lawful tenant of the suit premises viz. two rooms with front terrace on the first floor of Ravivar Peth, house no.1338. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record decreed the suit declaring that the Respondent is lawful tenant of the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) In the present petition, therefore, both the orders passed by the subordinate Courts are challenged. It is pertinent to note here that it was the case of the respondent that tenancy in his favour was created by one Lalchand Dalwale, who was admittedly the previous owner of the property. The present petitioner has purchased the property in court auction held on 13/3/68. The sale certificate in favour of the present petitioner was issued on 5/9/71. It was the case of the tenant that tenancy was created in his favour by Dalwale in the year 1960. In support of his case, tenant has relied on the rent receipts issued by Dalwale. On the other hand, it was the case of the petitioner that tenancy in favour of the Respondent was created by Dalwale after Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner and for that purpose petitioner was relying on the agreement between the petitioner and the said Dalwale. Admitted position is, Dalwale who was a party to the agreement has not been examined as a witness. In my opinion, since Dalwale has signed receipts which indicate that from 1966, rent was paid by the Respondent to the said Dalwale, he has also entered into agreement with the petitioner which shows that the Respondent was inducted as tenant in the year 1972. Therefore, really speaking, it was Dalwale who could have explained the situation, and therefore, Dalwale was the crucial witness for proving the case made out by the landlord. In the absence of examination of Dalwale as a witness by the petitioner, I find no fault with the findings recorded by the Courts below, accepting the case of the tenant. In any case, I do not find any error of law in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which are concurrent. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said orders.

(3.) Petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to cost.