The High Court dismissed a civil revision application filed by a tenant against an eviction decree. The court upheld the lower courts' finding that the premises were dangerous and required demolition, holding that no interference was warranted under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Civil revision application rejected summarily.
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.
spb/-
1
cra28-10.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2010
Ambadas Prabhakar Abhang ... Applicant. V/s. Dattatraya Laxman Ghule ... Respondent.
Mr. Tejesh Dande for the Applicant. Mr. Sanjeev Rairkar the Respondent.
CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2011.
P.C.
1 Heard.
2 This civil revision application is filed by the tenant against the decree for eviction passed in the suit filed by the respondent-landlord. The respondent filed a suit against the revision applicant for eviction on the ground that the suit premises have become dangerous and have been ordered to be demolished by the Pune Municipal Corporation. He produced on record a notice issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation and also evidence that the premises have become dilapidated and dangerous for living. The two courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the premises are required for the purpose of immediate demolition as ordered by the planing authority. This finding
2 cra28-10.sxw
spb/-
of fact recorded by the two courts below is a possible finding of fact and requires no interference in exercise of powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3 Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact the premises have been demolished after the decision of the trial court. This fact is disputed by the applicant. Even if this fact is not taken into consideration, in view of the concurrent finding recorded by the two courts below that the premises are dilapidated and dangerous for living, no interference is called for.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of fact by lower courts that the suit premises are dangerous and require immediate demolition warrants interference under Section 115 CPC?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ambadas Prabhakar Abhang
Dattatraya Laxman Ghule
D. G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
