N A I KHAN Vs. SUNAMALA BAPUSAHEB GURASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eviction of the Petitioner has been ordered on the ground that alternative premises have been obtained. It has come on record that a plot of land was purchased in the name of the wife of the Appellant on which a construction has come up. It was sought to be contended that this construction was put up by the son. The son has not been examined. On the other hand, the material on record shows that the Appellant was not residing in the suit premises. The appellate court has considered the facts that when the employees of the Electricity Board went to record meter readings the house was found to be closed. The Appellant has also not produced the electric bills which would have shown electric consumption and whether in fact the premises were being occupied by the Appellant. The appellate court has further drawn adverse inference against the Appellant on the grounds that neighbours have not been examined to show that the Appellant petitioner herein was residing in the premises.

(2.) Considering the above, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived by the trial court in holding that the Petitioner has availed the alternative premises can be said to be perverse. A contention was sought to be advanced at the highest the premises can be said in the name of the wife and not of the Appellant herein. That can be no answer. Ultimately, it is not as pointed out by the Court that it is the case of the Appellant that he is separated from his wife. No material has been so shown that wife has independent income of her own. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ petition rejected.