RAMNIVAS BANARASIDAS GUPTA Vs. PADMAVATI BHAILAL AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant challenges the order passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.599 of 1986 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the trial Court granting a decree of eviction in favour of the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord filed a suit in the year 1965 against the petitioner seeking a decree for eviction as also for recovery of rent. The Court had directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of rent. On failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount of rent, an order was made debarring the petitioner from appearing and defending the suit except with the leave of the Court. That order was passed on 23rd February 1978. The order debarring the defendant-petitioner from appearing and defending the suit was challenged before this Court and this Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the trial Court. Against the order of this Court, a Special Leave Petition was carried to the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by this Court and restored the order of the trial Court debarring the defendant from appearing and defendant the suit. Before the Appellate Court, a contention was raised that the defendant should be granted leave to defend the suit. That contention was also considered and rejected by the Appellate Court. When the present petition came up for admission before this Court, this Court rejected the petition in so far as it related to the finding of the Appellate Court rejecting the contention of the petitioner regarding his right to appear and defend the suit is concerned and the petition was admitted only with regard to the question whether in view of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, though the tenant is debarred from appearing and defending the suit, the Court is under a duty to satisfy itself on the basis of the material available on record whether the plaintiff-landlord has made out a case for passing a decree of eviction against the tenant and whether there is any such material available on record. Against the order of this Court dated 25th February 1994 passed in this petition while admitting the petition for final, hearing, Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.11848 and 11849/94 were preferred in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 4th August 1994 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, now, the only question that is required to be considered in the present petition is whether the Court was under a duty, before passing the decree of eviction in favour of the landlord to consider the material on record for satisfying itself as to whether the landlord had made out a case for grant of decree in his favour and and if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then, whether there is sufficient material available on record for making a decree in favour of the landlord.

(3.) NOW , for considering whether there was any material available on record for recording satisfaction by the Courts below, what has to be considered by this Court is whether there was enough material on record on the basis of which a satisfaction could reasonably be reached by the Courts below that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of possession. If the Court finds that there is material available on record on which satisfaction can be based, it is not for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to judge whether the material available on record was sufficient for recording that satisfaction. Now, considering the material available on record from this point of view, perusal of the plaint and the issues framed by the trial Court shows that the principal grounds that were urged on behalf of the landlord for securing a decree of eviction were that the tenant had changed the user of the garage; that the tenant had effected structural alterations of a permanent nature in the kitchen; and that the tenant was creating nuisance by placing plants in the balcony and watering them.