CHAMPALAL VITHURAM JAJU Vs. BHARAT REFINERIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are landlords challenge the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below under the Bombay Rent Act. Both the Courts on the basis of evidence have concurrently found that the landlords have not established any of the grounds on which they may be entitled to a decree of possession against the tenants.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that in so far as the grounds under Section 13(1)(i) is concerned, the landlords had established that ground inasmuch as it was their case that they wanted this open plot of land for construction of commercial complex. I have perused the evidence of plaintiff. In that deposition, if appears that the plaintiff himself has stated that on the adjoining plot he started raising some constructions, stopped that construction and let out the plot. The Court has found that the plaintiffs have sold some plots to others long back. The allegations of requirement of the landlords for possessions of the plots which is necessary to be established before a decree under Section 13(1)(i) can be passed, is not established. This finding is recorded on the concurrently by both the Courts and as I find that there is evidence on record to sustain those findings, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.