Bothmal Kaniram Singhvi v. Babu Aba Survashe

Mr. R.B. Singhvi i/by M/s Law Frame, advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. DATED : October 19, 2012. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. P.C.: Heard. 2 The above revision arises out of the proceedings under the Rent Act. Applicant’s suit for eviction of the respondent was decreed by the trial Court on the ground of arrears of rent and of waste and damages to the suit premises. Appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, however, reversed this decree and dismissed the applicant’s suit and therefore, the present revision. Shivgan 2 907-cra-426-2012 3 Suit notice was given on 9th November, 1992 alleging that the respondent has not paid arrears of rent since 1.9.1990. Lower appellate Court recorded findings of the fact that respondent sent money order to the applicant for the period from September, 1990 to to July, 1991 in the month of August, 1991. However, the same was refused by the applicant. Appellate Court, accordingly, held that respondent was willing to pay rent in respect of the suit premises but applicant refused to accept it. In these circumstances, respondent cannot said to be a willful defaulter. This finding can not be interfered with in my limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4 So far as the eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is concerned, it is the case of applicant that respondent by cutting mango tree and by encroaching on open space which was not part and parcel of the demised premises unauthorizedly and illegally has caused waste and damage to the suit premises. The appellate Court recorded findings that the applicant could not prove that the said mango tree was standing in the open space when the suit premises was let out to the respondent. This findings cannot be faulted with. Regarding encroachment on the suit premises, the appellate Court held that Shivgan 3 907-cra-426-2012 applicant had failed to prove that respondent has encroached upon the open space. This finding of the fact also cannot be interfered with in my jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 and the revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shivgan