SNEHALATA BALKRISHNA DANDEKAR Vs. MAHABAL CHINNAYYA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31.8.1983 passed by the IIIrd Extra Assistant Judge, Thane in Civil Appeal No.420 of 1981. That Appeal was filed by the present petitioners, challenging the order dated 9.11.1981 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Palghar in Regular Civil Suit No.214/1976. That Civil Suit was also filed by the present petitioners stating therein that they own a shed with Grampanchayat No.153(c) on the Manor Road at Palghar, admeasuring 32' x 25' and that it was given on rent to the respondent. The petitioner landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent and also on the ground that the tenant is not using the suit premises, for the purpose for which they were let, since six months before the institution of the suit. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded findings against the landlord and dismissed the Suit. In Appeal, filed by the landlord, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal. In the present petition, it is these two orders passed by the subordinate are challenged.

(2.) WHEN the petition was called for final hearing none appeared for the petitioners and the respondent. I have gone through the record of the case. I find that the Courts below, in so far as the ground of default is concerned, have found that the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to prove that the notice of demand issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was properly served on the tenant. Whether the notice was properly served on the tenant or not is a question of fact and both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding thereon. I do not find any manifest error of law in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Similarly, the Courts below have found that the landlords have failed to place adequate material on the record to establish that the tenant has not used the suit premises for the purposes for which they were let for a period of six months, preceding the date of filing of the suit. The Courts below after referring to all the evidence of the landlord, have held that the landlord has not placed any material on the record for establishing their case. The findings recorded in this regard is also a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. In this finding also, I do not find any manifest error of law and the findings recorded by both the Courts below are the concurrent findings of facts, based on the material on the record. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.