P JANAKI Vs. DWARKADAS KISHNANCHAND JAGESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.4.1983 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.206/1978. That appeal was filed by the respondent Dwarkadas challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay, dated 27.4.1978 in R.A.E.Suit No.643/3684/1976. That suit was filed by the present petitioner claiming therein that she is owner of Block No.B/902 on the 9th floor of the building of Usha Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and that she is a member of that Co-operative Society. She claimed that this block has been given on lease to Dwarkadas, the tenant-defendant. The landlady claimed a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that she needs the suit premises for her own bonafide occupation. The trial court recorded a finding in favour of the landlady holding that she has established that she needs the premises for her bonafide occupation. The trial court also recorded a finding in favour of the landlady on the question of comparative hardship. The trial court thus decreed the suit against the tenant. The tenant feeling aggrieved by that Judgment and decree filed an appeal. The appellate court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the trial court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It is this order of the appellate court which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) When the petition was called for final hearing, none appeared for the petitioner and none appeared for the respondent. I have gone through the record of the case. The appellate court has found that the family of the landlady holds 3 flats at different localities in Bombay. It has found that the landlady's flat at Sion consists of one room, kitchen, balcony and sanitary block, in all, admeasuring 360 sq.ft. The suit premises are at Bhandup. It is a flat with two bedrooms, hall, kitchen, balcony and sanitary block, admeasuring 675 sq.rt. The third flat is acquired in the name of her son Narayan at Mulund and it admeasures 500 sq.ft. Considering the accommodation available with the landlady, the appellate court reversed the finding recorded by the trial court on the question of bona fide need of the landlady. The appellate court observed that the family of the landlady consists of 8 members and they are having two flats already in their possession. The judgment of the appellate court is an elaborate judgment. It has considered the material on record in detail and has recorded the finding. I do not see any manifest error or apparent error of law in the finding recorded by the appellate court. Therefore I see no justification for interfering with the finding of the appellate court which is based on the material on record, in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

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