LAXMAN BALKRISHNA PAVEKAR Vs. ANANT RAMCHANDRA BUKSHETWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.1.1984 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge Satara in Civil Appeal No.35 of 1982. That Appeal was filed by the present petitioner, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, J.D.Satara dated 31.12.1981 in Regular Civil Suit No.333/1979. That Civil Suit was filed by the present respondent, claiming therein that he owns house No 190/5 situated at Moti Chowk, Satara and that the present petitioner is a tenant of one Khana on the ground floor of the suit house. The respondent-landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the landlord needs suit premises for his bonafide occupation, namely, for expansion of his shop. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on the record, recorded findings in favour of the landlord on the question of bonafide need and as also on the aspect of the comparative hardship. The Trial Court, thus decreed the suit for eviction against the tenant. In the Appeal filed by the tenant before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court after considering the material on the record confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court on both the above referred questions and dismissed the Appeal. Thus in the present petition, the orders passed by both the Courts below are challenged.

(2.) This petition was called for final hearing on 13.4.1997. At that time none appeared for the petitioner and the respondent and therefore, it was adjourned today. Today also when the matter was called for final hearing none appeared for the petitioner and the respondent. I have gone through the record of the petition. It appears that the petitioner is running a shop, selling grocery articles in the suit premises. It was the case of the landlord that he is having book-shop at the adjoining premises and because his business is expanding he needs the suit premises for accommodating his expanding business. Both the Courts below have found that the landlord has proved his bonafide need of the suit premises by placing evidence on record, oral and documentary, that the landlord needs the suit premises for expansion of his own business. In so far as the aspect of the comparative hardship is concerned, both the courts below have found that grocery shop in the suit premises is not the only source of income of the tenant and that the main business of the tenant is manufacturing Soda-water, which business he is carrying on in the House No.395 which is owned by the tenant himself. The Courts below have further found that the shop in the suit premises is also not being managed by the petitioner, but it is being managed by his wife. I find that the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on the material on the record and there is no manifest error of law in the concurrent findings of fact. I further find from the record that the petitioner and the respondent, both have filed affidavits and counter affidavits before this Court, placing additional material on the record. The statements in the affidavit made by the petitioner have been denied by the respondent by filing counter affidavit. Therefore, in the face of the fact that disputed questions of facts are involved, it would not be proper for me to adjudicate all those questions in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the face of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, I see no reason to entertain this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

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