Shri. Sitaram Baburao Kokane v. Shri. Sambhaji Khanduji Shinde

WP10840_16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10840 OF 2016 Sitaram Baburao Kokane ...

Petitioner Vs.

Sambhaji Khanduji Shinde ...

Respondent Mr. Jaydeep Deo for Petitioner.

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE :

JUNE 12, 2018 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2.

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff', has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2010 passed by the learned 7th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.698 of 2003 as also the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-17, Pune in Civil Appeal No.256 of 2010. By these orders, the Courts below dismissed the Suit instituted by the plaintiff under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'Act') for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that defendant is a willful defaulter. The Courts below held that plaintiff has not established that he is owner of the suit premises. 3.

After perusing the impugned orders, I do not find that the Courts below committed any error in dismissing the Suit. Plaintiff was not in a position to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, being based upon no evidence or that they are contrary to the evidence on record. Plaintiff was also not in a position to demonstrate that no reasonable person would have arrived at the 1/2

WP10840_16.doc conclusions other than arrived by the Courts below. However, in view of Section 35 of the Act, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to approach the appropriate Civil Court for establishing his title. Subject to this, Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2