SUSHILALABAI MADHUKAR PATHAK Vs. RAMCHANDRA TUKARAM WALVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the decree dated 18th December, 1985 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 24th August, 1983 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Solapur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 637 of 1979.

(2.) THE facts necessary for decision of this petition, briefly stated are that Madhukar Bhaskar Pathak, husband of the petitioner No. 1 occupied the suit premises, that is, two rooms in house No. 116, Gold Finch Peth, Solapur as tenant some time in the years 1935 and continued to occupy the same along with his family members till he died. His widow, a son and three daughters are continuing to occupy the same, and they are the petitioners before this Court. The respondent purchased the building, of which the suit premises formed part, on 6th February, 1979. After giving notice to deceased tenant Madhukar Pathak, he instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 637 of 1979 for eviction and recovery of possession of the suit premises in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge. He claimed possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required the suit premises bonafide and reasonably for his personal use and occupation. The suit was resisted by the deceased tenant Madhukar Pathak by his written statement Ex. 21. The learned Joint Civil Judge raised necessary issues and after referring them to trial he held that the respondent-landlord required the suit premises bonafide and reasonably for his personal use and occupation. He also found that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent-landlord by refusing to pass the decree. On those findings he held that the respondent-landlord was entitled to recover possession of the suit premises and decreed the respondent's suit. Feeling aggrieved, the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant Madhukar Pathak preferred Civil Appeal No. 723 of 1983. The learned VII Additional District Judge reconsidered the whole evidence on record and concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Joint Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants took me through the judgments of the two Courts below and contended that the Courts below have erred in reaching the finding that the suit premises were bonafide and reasonably required by the respondent-landlord for his personal use and occupation. The The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, contends that this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the finding of fact concurrently recorded by the two Courts below on appreciating the evidence on record. According to him, this Court cannot act as appeal Court while deciding the writ petition directed against the judgments of the Courts below. In support of his contention he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another, AIR 1975 SC 1297; Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, AIR 1984 SC 38; and Smt. M.M. Amonkar and others v. Dr. S.A. Johari, 1984(1) RCR 389 (SC) : AIR 1984 SC 931. The learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandravarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, 1987(1) RCR 154 : 1986(4) SCC 447, in support of his contention that in case of the miscarriage of justice this Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord support his contention that the Court while exercising supervisory in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot act as a Court of appeal and cannot correct the mere error of fact or law alleged to have been committed by the Courts below. Those decisions do support his contention that while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction this Court has only to see whether the Courts below have acted within the limits of their authority. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenants, stated the law at page 460 of the report thus :-