1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.325/2010 RAMBHAU LAXMAN DAVLE ..VS.. TELI SAMAJ MADHI & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 21st JULY 2010 Heard Shri Alok Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for eviction and possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, defendant was a monthly tenant in the suit property and was paying monthly rent of Rs.250/-. Defendant had agreed to pay the electric bills but after November,1999, the defendant did not pay any rent to the plaintiff and was also in arrears of rent of Rs.5000/-. On 6.10.2000 the plaintiffs asked the defendant to pay unpaid rent along with enhanced rent of the tenement. The defendant did not pay the rent @ Rs.350/- though he had agreed to pay the same at that rate and only issued a money order for an amount of Rs.3690/-. The plaintiffs therefore issued a demand notice and asked the defendant to deposit the rent of Rs.6750/- but the defendant never complied with the notice. The defendant according to the plaintiff also failed to pay electricity bills. The tenancy of the defendant was therefore, terminated by a notice dated 20.8.2001 and the defendant was asked to deliver vacant possession of the shop 2 to the plaintiff. The suit was instituted for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Though the defendant was served with the suit summons, he failed to file the written statement and the matter proceeded against the defendant without the written statement. The plaintiff filed the affidavit of the President of Madhi. The plaintiff’s witness was not cross-examined by the defendant. Since the relationship of the landlord and tenant was not disputed between the parties and since there was nothing on record to show that the defendant had paid the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.6750/- the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff and pay a sum of Rs.6550/- towards rent. An enquiry into future mesne profits was also ordered under order 20 rule 12 of C.P.C. The findings recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the first appellate court. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. In fact, the defendant had not contested the suit at all. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP