MAMANCHAND R AGARWAL Vs. VIMAL RAMCHANDRA TANKSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 17th December 1985 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.209.83. The appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 25th February 1983 passed by the 4th Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune in Suit No.3083 of 1978. That civil suit was filed by the petitioners claiming that they are owners of house No.17 and that the respondents are a tenant of two rooms, hall and a kitchen. The landlords sought decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds including the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent, that the landlords need the premises for their own occupation and that the premises have been unlawfully sublet by the tenant. The Trial Court found in favour of the landlords on the above referred three grounds and therefore decreed the suit in favour of the landlords and directed the tenant to vacate the suit premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Court reversed the findings on all the three grounds recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the landlords, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. In this petition, the landlords have challenged the said order of the Appellate Court.

(2.) TAKING of the ground of bonafide need first, the learned counsel urged that the Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding recorded by the Trial Court because the pleadings were specific and it was clear that it was the landlords' case that they need the suit premises for their own use and occupation. Further, the perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court shows that during the pendency of the litigation, the landlords received possession of some other premises in the suit house, the landlords deposed about it in the statement made before the Trial Court. Therefore, the landlords were called upon to produce the documents regarding the premises of which possession was received by the landlords during the pendency of the litigation. The landlords, however, did not produce those documents before the Court. Therefore, the Appellate Court has drawn an adverse inference against the landlords for non-production of relevant documents. It is clear that the adverse inference that has been drawn for non-production of the documents is that the landlords have not produced the documents because if the documents were produced, it would have falsified the case made out by the landlords in the plaint and deposition. I find no error in the finding recorded by the Appellate Court. I also find no error in the Appellate Court drawing adverse inference for not producing the documents, which were in the custody of landlords, in respect of the premises of which possession was received by the landlords during the pendency of the proceedings. The Appellate Court has opined that the landlords have not produced the documents because they were afraid that if the documents are produced, it will be revealed that the premises which are received by the landlords during the pendency of the litigation are sufficient to satisfy their need. In my opinion, therefore, in interference is called for in the finding recorded by the Appellate Court.

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