K K SHARMA Vs. R K CHAINANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 27.6 . 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, Bandra Branch, in Appeal No.105 of 1995. That appeal was filed by the present petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 19. 1. 1994 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in R. A. E. Suit No.926/3130 of 1984. That civil suit was filed by the present respondent Smt. R. K. Chainani claiming therein that she is the owner of the Flat No.9 Gulmarg, Charan Kamal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. plot No.74, Prabhat Colony, Road no. 6, Santacruz (E) Bombay 55 and that the petitioner is the tenant of the said premises. She claimed that as her husband was in service with the Income Tax Department on his transfer to Vidharba Region in the year 1978 she had to shift to Nagpur. She further claimed that her husband has retired from service in the year 1982. She claimed that she owns no other property at Bombay than the suit flat and that she has decided to settle down at Bombay and therefore she bonafide needs the suit flat for her own occupation.

(2.) THE trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, oral and documentary, recorded a finding in favour of the landlady on the question of bonafide need of the landlady to occupy the suit premises. THE trial court also found in favour of the landlady on the question of comparative hardship. THE trial court decreed the suit for eviction against the tenant.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri Abhyankar urged only one contention before me. Shri Abhyankar urged that though the appeal court has confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court, the appeal court while doing so did not discuss the evidence on record in detail and the appeal court did not appreciate the evidence on its own and instead the appeal court merely confirmed the findings given by the trial court. In the submission of Shri Abhyankar the appeal court being a court of facts was under a duty to appreciate the evidence on record independently.