VINAYAK MANGESH PADGAONKAR Vs. GULABRAO NARHARI ZUNJARRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8.7.86 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Thane in Civil Appeal No.395/85. That Appeal was filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1985 passed by the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, J.D.Kalyan in Regular Civil Suit No.321/82. That Civil Suit was filed by the respondent, claiming therein that he is owner of the house No.18 known as Tikaram Building, Kalyan and the petitioner is the tenant of room No.44 situated at Ali No.38 in the said house No.18. The landlord sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the tenant has made permanent construction structure in the suit premises without written consent of the landlord. It was further alleged that the tenant has committed acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108(O) of the Transfer of Property Act. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on the record, recorded finding in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit, directing the tenant to vacate the suit premises. In the Appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the tenant has made permanent structure in the suit premises and dismissed the Appeal. The cross-objection filed by the landlord was also dismissed.

(2.) When the petition was called for final hearing, Shri G.S.Godbole the learned Counsel appeared for the petitioners and Shri Oka, the learned counsel appeared for the respondent. After going through the record of the case, I find that after appreciating the evidence on the record, both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the tenant has removed the wooden planks of the flooring and has changed the flooring and has also done some other construction in R.C.C., which has resulted in creating further burden on the walls. Both the courts below have found that this construction has caused damage to the suit premises. I do not see any manifest error of law in the concurrent findings recorded by the subordinate courts so as to merit interference at the hands of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

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