1 C.R.A. NO.153/2003 WITH C.R.A. NO.85/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.153 OF 2003 Tulshiram s/o Ramlu Solkepalli, Age 37 years, Occ. Business as Barber R/o Dr. Ambedkar Road, Purna, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani. ... APPLICANT VERSUS Syed Ahmed Hussain s/o Syed Ali Hasan, Age 63 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o Sardar Patel Road, Purna, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani. ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent. ..... W I T H CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2006 Tulshiram s/o Ramlu Solkepalli, Age 41 years, Occ. Business as Barber R/o Dr. Ambedkar Road, Purna, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani. ... APPLICANT VERSUS Syed Ahmed Hussain s/o Syed Ali Hasan, Age 63 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o Sardar Patel Road, Purna, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani. ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th December, 2010 2 C.R.A. NO.153/2003 WITH C.R.A. NO.85/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The revision applicant in Civil Revision Application No. 153/2003 impugns the appellate judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137/2001, decreeing the suit of recovery of amount of Rs.10,800/-, by the judgment dated 18.4.2002, upsetting the judgment of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.191/1997, decided by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Purna, District Parbhani. The revision applicant in Civil Revision Application No.85/2006 impugns the appellate judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2004, decreeing the suit of recovery of amount of Rs.21,300/-, by the judgment dated 5.8.2006, upsetting the judgment of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.55/2002, decided by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purna, District Parbhani. 2. Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the revision applicant canvassed, there was no rent agreement between the revision applicant and the respondent concerning the suit premises. The inter-se dispute between the rival groups will have to be settled as the rentals was not payable by the applicant to the respondent. The findings of the Court of first instance were elaborate and well reasoned, did not warrant for any interference by the Court of first instance and upsetting the same, being projecting a perversity, calls for interference. 3. Both the Courts have unerringly accepted the respondent to be landlord of the applicant. The Court of first instance indicated the finding as to rent to be Rs.300/- per month or that rent was due from 3 C.R.A. NO.153/2003 WITH C.R.A. NO.85/2006 1.7.1993. It is on record that the respondent on occasions used to collect rentals from the applicant for which receipts are even issued by the respondents, one of such receipt is at Exh. 77, dated 17.12.1970 for Rs.175/- for rental of suit premises covering seven months period. There are other receipts which are produced, referred by the Court of first instance in paragraph No.28 in Civil Revision Application No. 153/2003. These receipts are not in controversy. The sum total of these receipts will illustrate that annually Rs.3600/- are being paid by the applicant. 4. It is a matter of record that the respondent has, after his name was mutated in the year 1991, has issued a notice below Exhibit 56 to the revision applicant. This notice has not been disputed. In the light of this notice, it was not open for revision applicant to test veracity of the respondent’s claim of rentals. He has been estopped from doing that exercise, as ordained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court, was being of the Court of fact finding and capable to evaluate the evidence which was flowing in tune with correct appreciation, the challenge by the revision applicant to the status of the respondent even before Municipal authorities did not yield any result. The findings recorded by the learned District Judge, in the set of situation, does not project any perversity or illegality to disturb the same. 5. The scope of revision about verifying correctness is narrower than the appeal and as has been declared by the Apex Court in 4 C.R.A. NO.153/2003 WITH C.R.A. NO.85/2006 the matter of Shaikh Jaffar Shaik Mahmood & ors. Vs. Mohd. Pasha Hakkani Sahab & ors. (AIR 1975 SC 794). In similarly placed situation, in the matter of Ram Dass Vs. Davinder ( 2004 (3) SCC 684 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court has illustrated the scope of revision to interfere. 6. It is difficult to digest that the revision applicant is such a gullible person as he could not know as to who is the real owner of the property. He acted as a stooge in between the rival group and sought a benefit and benediction in the impasse. The order does not call for any interference. Hence, both the Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. 7. The revision applicant should not take benefit of the impasse and the bitterness in relation of two groups, the amount so far deposited by the revision applicant before the Court of first instance as was directed by the appellate Court to remain intact. The learned Judge shall invest the same in a Nationalised Bank till decision of a controversy before Apex Court. The observations made herein will be restricted to the present litigation. The recovery in Civil Revision Application No. 85/2006 would be limited to a period of three years. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE