RAGHUVIRSINGH RAMCHANDRASINGH THAKUR Vs. LAXMANBHAI D KURLAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these 3 petitions, petitioner challenges common Order passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court of Bombay in Appeals No.683/83, 685/83 and 686/83 and therefore, these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) APPEALS No.683/83, 685/83 and 686/83 were filed by the petitioners herein challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the Single Judge of the Small Causes Court, Gr. Bombay dated 31/8/83 in RAE Suits No.3310/70, 3311/70 and 3314/70. Those Suits were filed by the original Respondent No.1 - Laxmanbhai Kurlawalla and Respondent No.2 - Mavjibhai Kurlawalla, claiming that they are owners of the suit premises which are occupied by the petitioners as their tenants.

(3.) PERUSAL of the Orders impugned in the petitions shows that both the Courts relied on the letter dated 6/3/70 addressed to the Advocate of the Landlord by the Advocate of the tenants and both the Courts held that the contents of this letter dated 6/3/70 conclusively established that the demand Notice was received by the tenants. I have perused the letter dated 6/3/70. From first paragraph of the letter it is clear that the tenants were aware of the Notice sent by the Landlord to the tenants. PERUSAL of the paragraph No.2 shows that the tenants were also aware of the contents of those Notice. In my opinion, therefore, conclusion drawn concurrently by the 2 Courts below on the basis of the contents of the letter dated 6/3/70 that demand Notices were personally served on the tenants is a possible conclusion and therefore, in my opinion, this Court cannot interfere with that conclusion in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.