Bombay High Court
Prakashchandra Ganeshlal Bafna vs Naresh Darshanlal Rajpal S/O Late ... on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(26)-CRA-144-22.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2022
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
WITH
GOVINDRAO
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1208 OF 2022
2022.06.25
16:43:30
+0530
Prakashchandra Ganeshlal Bafna ..Applicant
Versus
Naresh Darshanlal Rajpal ..Respondent
Mr. D. S. Sapkale, for the Applicant.
Mr. C. N. Chavan, for the Respondent.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 24th JUNE, 2022
P.C.
1. The eviction of the applicant is sought on the
ground of bonafide need, arrears of rent and alteration to
the accommodation. The Small Causes Court decreed the
suit of the respondent/plaintiff thereby granting decree of
eviction on the ground of arrears and bonafide need. The
arrears claimed were for a period from October, 2001 to
December, 2010. The notice demanding arrears dated 20 th
December, 2010 was not answered by the applicant/
tenant.
2. The decree was passed against the applicant on
10th October, 2012 in RAE & R Suit No.845/1356 of 2011.
BGP. 1 of 3
(26)-CRA-144-22.doc.
3. The applicant's appeal being Appeal No.20 of
2014 also came to be dismissed on 17 th February, 2021. As
such, this revision application.
4. Amongst other grounds on which both these
judgments are assailed by the applicant are, a) by virtue of
power of attorney dated 16th April, 1991 executed by one
Rasiklal Daga, the applicant became owner of the property.
So as to substantiate the said claim, he would urge that
that survey was carried out by Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay on 31st July, 2000, wherein a slip was
issued thereby certifying possession of the applicant over
the suit property. Both these documents viz. power of
attorney and survey slip are claimed to have conferred title
on the applicant of the suit property. In addition, the
contentions are, the necessary party to the suit, Mr.
Rasiklal Daga from whom the possession was received by
the applicant as a gratuitous occupant is not impleaded
and as such, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary
or appropriate party.
5. Based on both the aforesaid points, counsel for
the applicant would urge that the respondent/plaintiff has
failed to prove his title to the suit property and that being
so, both the judgments warrant interference. The
additional ground is raised that the appellate court
committed an error in rejecting prayer of the applicant
BGP. 2 of 3
(26)-CRA-144-22.doc.
seeking production of additional evidence at the appellate
stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.
6. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff while
opposing aforesaid contentions would urge that the
present revision is preferred against the concurrent
findings and there is limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
It is further claimed that the applicant in the evidence has
categorically admitted landlord and tenant relationship.
According to him, till this date, applicant has not cleared
arrears. As such, he has sought dismissal.
7. At this stage, counsel for the applicant submits
that applicant shall remain present before this Court on 1 st
July, 2022 so as to enable him to take instructions and
make statement as to whether the applicant intend to
surrender possession provided he is granted sufficient
breathing period and also latitude in the matter of inquiry
ordered for payment of mesne profits.
8. As such, by consent, adjourned to 1st July, 2022.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
