The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the eviction of appellants who were found to be unauthorized occupants rather than tenants. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the suit was not barred by limitation and no substantial question of law arose.
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.
Tapadia RR
1 / 7 SA/556/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2011 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2011 IN SA/556/2011
Mr. Ramesh Dattatraya Bakre, since deceased through his Lrs 1A. Smt Vijaya Ramesh Bakare and Ors
..Appellants
Vs
Shri Prabhakar Laxman Randive .. Respondent
Mr. Ashutosh M.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Amit Borkar with Mr. Prasad S.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 20/06/2013
PC:
2 / 7 SA/556/2011
hand over vacant possession of the property bearing C.T.S No.1415, Municipal House No.142, situate at Rahimtpur, Taluka Koregaon.
3 / 7 SA/556/2011
upon to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. He submitted that the said notice was purportedly withdrawn by subsequent notice dated 11.12.1995 at Exhibit 18 on the ground that there was technical defect in issuing the earlier notice dated 17.2.1995. Mr Kulkarni, therefore, submitted that having regard to the assertions made in Regular Civil Suit No.247 of 1986, the present suit, being R.C.Suit No.33 of 1996 coupled with notice dated 17.2.1995, tenancy of the defendants is conclusively established.
4 / 7 SA/556/2011
had initially instituted Regular Civil Suit No.247 of 1986. It further appears that the Plaint was amended and the present plaintiff was added as plaintiff no.2. In paragraph 2 it was asserted that defendant no.1 Narsaji Oswal was tenant in the suit premises and was not regularly paying monthly rent. In paragraph 3 it is asserted that till 31.5.1983 relationship of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 were excellent and till that time rent was not in arrears. However, thereafter defendant no.1 therein did not pay rent to plaintiff no.1 as also he closed down his business. Without taking permission of the plaintiff he inducted the present defendants who were impleaded as defendant nos 2 and 3 in the suit. In other words, perusal of the assertions made in paragraph 3 does not show that the plaintiff therein admitted status of the defendants either as tenant or sub-tenant. On the other hand, it was clearly asserted that the present defendants were inducted illegally and unauthorisedly by defendant no.1 therein.
5 / 7 SA/556/2011
with liberty to file fresh suit. Pursuant to that liberty, the present suit was instituted on 8.2.1996. Perusal of the Plaint in the present suit also does not show that the plaintiff admitted that the defendant is a tenant. 7. Mr. Kulkarni, however, submitted that tenancy of the defendants is admitted in the notice dated 17.2.1995. The said notice was sought to be withdrawn subsequently on 11.12.1995 but that will not amount to withdrawal of admission given in the notice dated 17.2.1995. This aspect was considered by the Courts below and the Courts below have recorded that it does not show that the plaintiff admitted that the defendants were tenants in the suit premises. On the contrary, it was asserted that Shri Oswal was tenant and after his demise, the possession of the defendants is unauthorised. In paragraph 12 the learned trial Judge held that the defendants did not prove their case that they were tenants and Shri Oswal was sub tenant. The learned trial Judge in paragraph 11 of the order also recorded finding of fact that the defendants have not led any evidence to show that they were tenants and Oswal was his sub tenant. The said findings were affirmed by the learned District Judge. I do not find that the Courts below committed any error in recording the finding to that effect.
6 / 7 SA/556/2011
7 / 7 SA/556/2011
to Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The defendants have not shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the basis of evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. In view thereof, no substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the tenancy status of the defendants was conclusively established.
Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the judgments and decrees below are liable to be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt Vijaya Ramesh Bakre and Ors
Shri Prabhakar Laxman Randive
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
