ARVIND BALAJI WALVEKAR Vs. CHHABUTAI MADHAV MANDLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.8.1981 passed by the District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.700/1979. That Civil appeal was filed by the respondent-Smt.Chhabutai, challenging the order dated 16.8.1978 passed by the Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.2692/1975. That suit was also filed by the respondent, claiming a declaration that she is a tenant of a stall, admeasuring 4' x 4' feet on the Otla in front of House No.1067, Budhwar Peth, Pune. The suit premises are owned by the present petitioner. The suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant, filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on the record and decreed the suit, declaring that the plaintiff/respondent is a monthly tenant of the defendant/petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- of the premises on the front Ota of House No.1067, Budhwar Peth, Poona, admeasuring 4 x 4 feet on which her business stall stands. It is this order of the appellate Court which is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that in the absence of any documentary evidence the appellate Court could not have recorded a finding that the respondent had proved the case that the tenancy of the suit premises was created in her favour. The contention urged by the learned counsel is not sound. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court shows that the appellate Court has relied on the licence issued by the Local Authority under the Shop and Establishment Act in the year 1971, which was renewed from time to time. The Court has held that it is established on the record that from 1971 the respondent was carrying on the business on the suit premises and that till 1975 the petitioner landlord at no point of time raised any objection. The Appellate Court has appreciated the oral evidence on the record and has held that it is satisfied with the evidence led by the respondent that the tenancy of the suit premises was created in her favour. It is thus clear that the whole case turns on the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on the record. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on the record in the absence of any manifest error of law being pointed out in the findings recorded by the subordinate courts. No such error is pointed out to me. Therefore, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the appellate court do not 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 is discharged with no order as to costs.