M/S. Rahemtulla Haji Suleman Lala Thr. Partner Khuddus Haji Gani v. Ashokkumar S/O. Bansilalji Kataria

1/3 =IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.12 of 2017 M/s Rahemtulla Haji Suleman Lala, Thr. Partner Khuddus Haji Gani, Wardha -vsAshokkumar s/o Bansilalji Kataria, Warleshwar Road, Mumbai ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri M. Atteeque, Advocate for applicant.

Shri A. A. Naik, Advocate for respondent.

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE : March 22, 2017 The tenant occupying the premises owned by the non-applicant has challenged the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court which decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The non-applicant initiated proceedings for issuance of quit notice under provisions of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. This permission was sought on the ground that the non-applicant had bonafide need of the suit premises. The permission was granted by the Rent Controller and the same attained finality. Thereafter by issuing a quit notice suit for possession came to be filed. The trial Court held that the notice at Exhibit-20 was duly served on the applicant and the tenancy was validly terminated. Hence the suit for possession came to be decreed. The appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Appellate Court.

2/3 2.

Shri M. Atteeque, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court did not answer the issues with regard to the bonafide need of the plaintiff and with regard to comparative hardship to the tenant though the same were specifically pleaded. He submitted that though need of the plaintiff was pleaded, the plaintiff did not examine himself but instead examined his son. He therefore submitted that both the Courts committed an error by decreeing the suit. 3.

Shri A. A. Naik, learned counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned judgment. According to him after the permission was granted by the Rent Controller attained finality the same issue could not be reagitated in the suit for eviction. It was only necessary to examine whether the quit notice was validly issued and duly served on the tenant. For said purpose, he relied upon the decision in Vishwasrao Shankarrao Meghe (since deceased through his L.Rs). vs. Bachharam Varumal Balwani and anr. 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 403. He submitted that the decree as passed was legal and valid.

4.

After hearing the respective counsel, I do not find that both the Courts committed any error in directing eviction of the applicant. The permission for issuing quit notice on the ground of bonafide need attained finally. In view of law laid down in Vishwasrao Shankarrao

3/3 Meghe (supra), these questions cannot be reagitated in the civil suit that is filed after obtaining such permission. The finding that the quit notice has been duly served on the tenant is a finding of fact. In that view of the matter, there is no case made out to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

5.

Since the applicant is in possession of the suit premises since long, it is granted time till the end of July 2017 to vacate the premises subject to filing undertaking within a period of four weeks from today in this Court that it would continue to pay the monetary consideration for occupying the premises to the non-applicant till the end of July 2017 and shall vacate the premises by 31/07/2017.

Revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Asmita