SURYAKANT VISHWANATH AJINKYA Vs. KUSUM VASUDEO MHATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants' petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on two grounds, namely, (i) that the tenants have acquired suitable alternate accommodation and (ii) that they have shifted from the suit premises.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that petitioner No.1-Suryakant is residing in his own house at Andheri and that petitioners Nos.2 and 3, who are in the service of the Reserve Bank of India, have been allotted accommodation by the Reserve Bank of India and they are in occupation of those quarters. The question whether allotment of accommodation by an employer can be taken into consideration while deciding whether the tenant has secured suitable alternate accommodation has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 16.11.1989 in Writ Petition No.946 of 1984 (Parviz B.Engineer v. Behram Dadabhai Pesuna & others). This Court has held that the allotment of residence to the tenant by the employer is relevant and can be taken into consideration. Considering that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and that they are based on the evidence on record and also that it is conclusively established on record that all the 3 tenants have secured accommodation of their own, I do not think that the orders impugned in the petition can be said to have occasional failure of justice so as to merit interference in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AT this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners requests that the interim order made by this Court in the present petition should be continued, dispite the dismissal of the petition, for a period of 8 weeks, obviously, to enable him to approach the higher court. The request is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is, therefore, directed that the interim order made in the present petition shall continue to operate for a period of 8 weeks from today, despite the dismissal of this petition. However, it is directed that during this period of 8 weeks, the petitioners shall not create any third party interests in the suit premises and shall not part with possession of the suit premises to anybody except the respondent. Certified copy expedited.