Writ petition dismissed against appellate court findings that a demand notice was not validly served on a tenant rejects interference with factual assessments on service.
None; the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2006
Bansilal Chaganlal, .. Petitioners.
Vs
1. Smt Janabai Keshav Ghah
and anr. .. Respondents.
Mr R.D.Sawant, for the petitioner.
CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J.
DATE : 20.02.08.
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is directed against the
judgment and order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the
appellate court by which the appeal filed by the
respondent-tenant has been allowed. The appeal was
against the judgment and order passed by the trial court
by which the suit was decreed. The suit was instituted
by the petitioner-landlord for ejectment on the ground
of default, as is available under section 12(3)(a) of
the Bombay Rent Act. I perused the judgment of the
appellate court and more particularly page 12 of the
judgment wherein the appellate court has considered
whether the demand notice, allegedly sent by the
petitioner-landlord, was ever received by the tenant.
Mr.Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently submitted that the RPAD packet was addressed
-2-
to the tenant so also the acknowledgement receipt on
record shows the signature of the addressee which is
sufficient to prove that the demand notice was served on
the tenant and in view thereof the findings recorded by
the appellate court are not sustainable in law. From
perusal of the judgment and order material placed on
record, it reveals that the RPAD packet containing the
demand notice was returned with the endorsement "the
addressee was not found" though the acknowledgement
shows that it was purportedly signed by the addressee.
Both these documents, which are the part of record, are
not consistent with the case set up by the landlord.
Insofar as the postal certificate in respect of the very
same demand notice is concerned, the envelop shows the
name of one Ragunath Chikhalkar and not of the tenant.
Considering this material on record the appellate court
has discarded the evidence led by the landlord in
support of his case that the demand notice was in fact
served on the tenant. I do not find any reason to
interfere with these findings of fact which are based on
the material on record. No case, in my opinion, is made
out for interferance with the findings of fact recorded
by the appellate court in the writ jurisdiction of this
court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.
-3-
(D.B.Bhosale,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the appellate court regarding the service of the demand notice under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bansilal Chaganlal
Smt Janabai Keshav Ghah
D.B.Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court