Bombay High Court
Tukaram Narayan Gaikar vs Gulam Hussain Mulla (Bhagan) Thr. Lrs on 12 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:32472
Gayatri Shimpi 16-CRA-545-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2023
Tukaram Narayan Gaikar ....Applicant
V/s.
Gulam Hussain Mulla (Bhagan) Thr.
a) Fullain Gulam Hussain Sayyed and Ors. ....Respondents
________________________________________________
Mr. Mayur S. Kadam i/b Ms. Kavita M. Pawar, for the Applicat.
________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Date : 12 AUGUST 2024.
P.C. :
1) The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to set up a
challenge to the Judgment and Order dated 4 July 2018 passed by District
Judge, Kalyan dismissing the Civil Appeal No.36 of 2007 and confirming
the Judgment and Decree dated 11 January 2007 passed by Joint Civil Judge
Junior Division, Kalyan dismissing the RCS No.480 of 1994.
2) The Applicant landlord instituted RCS No.480 of 1994 seeking
recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of : (i) arrears
of rent; (ii) unauthorized additions and alterations; (iii) encroachment and
cause of nuisance and annoyance; (iv) subletting; (v) bonafide requirement.
3) After detailed inquiry into the allegations and after considering the
entire evidence on record, the Trial Court rejected each of the grounds
raised by the landlord. The Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence
and has upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Thus, all the
___Page No.1 of 2___
12 August 2024
Gayatri Shimpi 16-CRA-545-2023.docx
grounds raised by the Appellant / Plaintiff for seeking possession of the
suit premises have been concurrently rejected.
4) Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant would
submit that despite passing of specific order by the Trial court for deposit
of rent, the arrears of rent were not deposited which constituted a cause for
the Trial Court to strike off defence of the Defendant-tenant. However,
upon being queried as to whether Plaintiff filed any application before the
Trial Court seeking striking off defence of the Defendant, no satisfactory
answer is forthcoming. What is sought to be submitted is that the point was
raised only during the course of arguments.
5) The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record has rejected
the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent and the said finding is
upheld by the Appellate Court. Similar is the position with regard to the
other grounds of encroachments/nuisance subletting and bonafide
requirement. During the course of his submissions, the learned counsel has
not been able to point out any palpable error in the concurrent findings
recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Court. In exercise of revisionary
jurisdiction, this Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence and
arrive at a conclusion different from the one concurrently arrived at by the
Trial and the Appellate Court. I therefore, do not find any reason to
interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court.
6) The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
GAYATRI RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
SHIMPI Date:
2024.08.14
10:14:40 +0530
___Page No.2 of 2___
12 August 2024
