In a second appeal challenging a decree based lessors lessee relationship instead licensee termination appeal dismissed favoring respondent.
The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the Civil Application also stood 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.
Tapadia RR
1 / 4 SA/729/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2012 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1376 OF 2012 IN SA/729/2012
Dilip Bhausaheb Pawar
..Appellant
Vs
Latif Yasin Shaikh
.. Respondent
Mr. P.B.Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.
CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 17/06/2013
PC:
2 / 4 SA/729/2012
learned trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent-defendant is a licensee of the suit premises and that the appellant-plaintiff had validly terminated his license. Consistent with these findings, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit and directed the respondent to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
3 / 4 SA/729/2012
Exhibits 51 to 60 which clearly show that he has paid the property tax from the year 1980-81. The learned District Judge further observed in paragraph 24 that though the defendant failed to prove that the rent receipts are in respect of the suit property, the other documentary evidence, such as money order receipts, extracts of the property register of Grampanchayat Koregaon, tax receipts as also the evidence regarding exclusive possession of the defendant over the suit property clearly establish relationship between Dr. Bokil, vendor of the present appellant and the respondent was that of lessor and lessee. The learned District Judge also considered the fact that the appellant did not examine his vendor Dr. Bokil to bring on record the relationship between Dr. Bokil and the defendant.
4 / 4 SA/729/2012
jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. In view thereof, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(R.G.KETKAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene under section 100 of CPC when the District Judge's finding that the tenant paid property tax and had exclusive possession establishes a landlord-lessee relation
Whether the impugned judgment is based on no evidence or amounts to perversity warranting interference in a second appeal.
Whether the District Judge erred in holding the respondent a tenant rather than a licensee despite rent receipts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Bhausaheb Pawar
Latif Yasin Shaikh
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
