Bombay High Court
Wamanrao Bapurao Jadhav vs Ravanshi Nagoappa Haygale And ... on 21 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 mca373.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.373 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2234 OF 2012
Wamanrao Bapurao Jadhav,
Aged about 74 years,
Occupation - Pensioner,
R/o Municipal House No.558,
Ward No.9, Kishor Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. and Dist. Amravati. .... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1) Ravanshi Nagoappa Haygale,
Aged about 72 years,
Occupation - Pensioner,
R/o Rathi Layout, Wardha,
Tq. and Dist. Wardha.
2) The Resident Deputy Collector,
Amravati, District Amravati. .... NON-APPLICANTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for the applicant,
Shri S.U. Nemade, Advocate for the non-applicant No.1,
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the non-applicant No.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 21
JUNE, 2016
st
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for the applicant-
2 mca373.15
original petitioner (tenant), Shri S.U. Nemade, Advocate for the non-
applicant No.1-original respondent No.1 (landlord) and Mrs.
H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3.
The applicant-tenant seeks review of the judgment passed
by this Court dismissing the petition filed by him. The contention of
the applicant-tenant is that the bonafide need as pleaded by the
landlord was not genuine and it is substantiated by the document on
record i.e. the copy of public notice published in the daily "Lokmat"
dated 22-12-2002 to the effect that the property in question was to be
sold. It is submitted that the applicant-tenant had placed the copy of
the above public notice on the record of appellate authority and had
filed an application on 18-03-2010 seeking permission to lead
evidence, however, the Resident Deputy Collector rejected the prayer
of the applicant-tenant overlooking the settled law that in the
proceedings under C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control
Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "Rent Control Order, 1949"),
while considering the claim of the landlord for permission to terminate
the tenancy, the subsequent events are required to be considered. It is
3 mca373.15
further submitted that while deciding the petition, this Court has not
considered the contentions of the tenant that he is not in arrears of
rent and permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order,
1949 could not have been granted.
The learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant has relied
on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Mahendrabhai
Purushottam Patel vs. Vasant Mahadeorao Sangole reported in
1996(1) Mh.L.J. 339, to fortify his submission that the review
jurisdiction conferred by Clause 21(2-a) of the Rent Control Order,
1949 is wide and in deserving cases the concerned authority while
exercising review jurisdiction has the power to correct gross errors of
fact apparent on record. The proposition laid down by the judgment is
well settled. However, I do not find that any error, apparent on record,
is committed while deciding the petition.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicant-tenant has relied
on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sheshambal (Dead) through LRs. vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur
Building and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 470, to fortify his
submission that the subsequent developments and events should be
considered while dealing with the claim of the landlord on the ground
4 mca373.15
of bonafide requirement. Again the proposition is well established,
however, the issue is whether the tenant has been able to substantiate
his case on the basis of alleged subsequent events.
5. After considering the material on record, I find that the
tenant had not raised any challenge to the order passed by the
Resident Deputy Collector on 01-04-2010 rejecting the application of
tenant seeking permission to lead evidence to prove the publication of
alleged public notice by the landlord. There is nothing on record to
show that the tenant had requested this Court when the petition is
decided, to remit the matter for recording of evidence to prove the
contentions of the tenant on the basis of the alleged public notice.
6. The tenant has not been able to prove that the alleged
public notice was issued by the landlord. Moreover, the public notice
is alleged to have been published in the newspaper on 22-12-2002.
The tenant has not pleaded that the landlord has actually sold out the
house and therefore, the bonafide need as pleaded by the landlord was
not genuine.
5 mca373.15
7. In the facts of the case, I do not find any error apparent on
the face of record which necessitates the exercise of review jurisdiction
by this Court. The application is dismissed with costs quantified at
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid by the applicant-tenant
to the non-applicant No.1-landlord within two months.
ig JUDGE
adgokar
