SURENDRA TULSIDAS JATTANI Vs. RAM D. BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 17.7.1985 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.289 of 1984. That appeal was filed by the Respondent challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 9.3.1984 in R.A.E. Suit-No.835 of 1970. That suit was filed by the Petitioner claiming therein that the Petitioner is the owner of a flat at 14-D, B.K.Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Kandivali West, Bombay, of which the Respondent is the tenant. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant, mainly on two grounds, namely, (i) that the premises have been unlawfully sublet by the tenant, and (ii) that the tenant has secured suitable residence. The Trial Court recorded findings in favour of the landlord on the ground of securing suitable residential premises by the tenant, as also on the ground of unlawful subletting of the suit premises by the tenant. In the result, the suit filed by the Petitioner was decreed in his favour and the tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises.

(2.) IN the appeal filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court,the appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court on both the grounds. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside by the Appellate Court.

(3.) NOW examining the evidence on record in the light of the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel, it is clear that the evidence which is placed on record by the plaintiff without any objection being raised by the Defendant could not have been ignored by the Appellate Court. In so far as the bungalow and the flat in the Vrindavan Vatrika Society are concerned, they are purchased in the name of Gomatibai, who was the mother of the tenant. The Defendant-tenant's sole witness Mrs. Madhuri has clearly stated in her deposition that Gomatibai was dependant on the tenant. Therefore, in my opinion the only conclusion that was possible was that the premises were acquired by the tenant in the name of his mother. It is further to be seen that Gomatibai is also expired in 1983. Therefore, a submission was made before the Court that the premises standing in the name of Gomatibai would be inherited by the Respondent. However, that submission was not considered by the Appellate Court on the ground that there are no pleadings to that effect in the plaint. In my opinion, the Appellate Court has committed a grave error in ignoring the submissions made on behalf of the landlord. It is clear from the evidence on record that so far as the tenant is concerned, he was in service in Japan and he was financially very well of, and he was in a position to purchase the above referred premises. In my opinion, the Appellate Court has not given any valid reasons for reversing the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court and therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in reversing those findings.