RAJESHWAR NAGNATH GHONGADE Vs. JAYANT DHANYAKUMAR BHUMKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4.6.1984 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No.569/1981. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2.5.1981 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi, in Regular Civil Suit No.170/1976. That civil suit was also filed by the petitioner claiming therein that he owns property bearing Gram Panchayat House No.712 at Vairag, Taluka Barshi, admeasuring 51' x 75', which is open land, of which the respondent is a tenant. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on two grounds : (1) that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent and (2) that the landlord needs the suit land for his own bona fide needs. The trial court recorded findings against the landlord on both the grounds and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlord, the appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, what is challenged in the present petition are the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below.

(2.) So far as the ground of default is concerned, it is an admitted position that the lease was an yearly lease and therefore no decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act could have been passed. So far as section 12(3)(b) of the Act is concerned, I find that the tenant has complied with the requirements of that section and no finding could have been recorded by the courts below under section 12(3)(b) on the ground of default.

(3.) So far as the ground of bona fide need is concerned, both the courts have found that the landlord owns other properties in the village Vairag where he can set up oil mills if he really wants to do so. So far as this ground is concerned, in my opinion, the case turns on appreciation of the evidence on record. No error of law in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in this regard is pointed out to me so as to merit interference at the hands of this court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.