LAWS(BOM)-1988-4-69

WAMAN DATTARAYA PUROHIT Vs. WAMAN DATTARAYA KALE

Decided On April 29, 1988
Waman Dattaraya Purohit Appellant
V/S
Waman Dattaraya Kale Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) THERE is absolutely no reason to justify interference with impugned decree under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is more so since there is concurrent finding of fact reached by the two Courts below and it flows out of purely a process of appreciation of evidence and furthermore there is hardly any error on the face of the record. The issue obviously cannot be reopened in this extraordinary jurisdiction. However, even on reassessment no ground is made out to upset the finding and decree.

(3.) THE plaintiff's case under Section 13(1)(g) for bonafide and reasonable requirement is fully established by evidence on record. Similarly, the issue of comparative hardship under Section 13(2) has also been properly answered in favour of the plaintiffs. In is fully established by very cogent evidence that the respondent landlord was working as Chief Engineer, Western Railways. In that official capacity during the tenure of service he was allotted Government premises and has been staying there for years together. Earlier he had asked for voluntary retirement by his letter dated 9th November, 1977 and he wanted to settle down in Pune on account of unsatisfactory condition of his health. It is on that basis that he had filed previous suit in the year 1979 on two counts about that reasonable and bonafide requirement and that the defendant had acquired suitable alternate residence. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit though only under Section 13(1)(1) and not one under Section 13(1)(g), which decree was upset in the appeal against which writ petition was filed in this Court, where also the plaintiff met with no success. However, the said judgment makes it very clear and it is accepted by the parties that essentially a finding came to be recorded against him because at the time he had not actually retired and this Court had stipulated that the plaintiff may file a fresh suit after he actually retires from the service.