1 CRA 400 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 400 OF 2009 Vasudeo Bhalchandra Pitkar ...Petitioner Vs. Smt. Dehubai Maroti Kadam and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Rajesh Datar for Petitioner Mr. P.S. Dani for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.G. Deshmukh for Respondent No.3 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 16th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.245 of 1996 dated 22nd November, 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional District Judge, Raigad was pleased to allow the civil appeal and passed a decree in favour of the Respondent-Tenant and declared that the Respondent- Plaintiff continues to be the tenant in the suit property with a further direction to the Defendants to put the 2 CRA 400 of 2009 Plaintiff in possession of the suit premises in the newly constructed building. 3. Brief facts are that the Respondent-Original Plaintiff Smt. Dehubai Maruti Kadam filed a suit for a declaration that she is the tenant of the Respondent and for a direction that the Plaintiff should be directed to put her in possession of the suit premises in the newly constructed building. The suit premises initially, was owned by the Original Defendant No.1. He, however, sold the suit property to the Defendant No.2, who, in turn, sold the property to the Defendant No.3. The written statement was filed by the Defendants. In which, it was contended that the Plaintiff had accepted Rs.1,000/- and had relinquished her right over the tenanted premises and had surrendered her tenancy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff had not established that she was the tenant of the premises and that she had not relinquished her right in respect of the tenanted premises. In appeal, however, the Appellate Court held that the Trial court had erred in putting the burden of proof on the Plaintiff on the question of surrendering the premises. The Lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the Defendants had not proved the document of 3 CRA 400 of 2009 surrender of tenancy since the xerox copy of the said document was filed. 4. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court, in my view, has rightly held that the burden of proving the said document was on the Defendants and not on the Plaintiff; and secondly, the said burden was not discharged, and the document was not proved, and that the Trial Court had erroneously come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has not proved her case. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Civil Revision Application, therefore, is dismissed and, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)