vsa 1 CRA 1014_2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1014 OF 2010 Air India Ltd. ... Applicant (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Ltd.) vs. Dorabjee & Company ... Respondent Mr. G.S. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. S.K. Chari and Ms. Kavita Anchan, i/b. M.V. Kini & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. Vikram Shinde, i/b. Mr. Vigil Juris for the Respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd December, 2011 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant. The Revision Applicant is the defendant and the Respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit premises is the premises admeasuring 630 sq.ft. situated on the ground floor of a building, more particularly described in the plaint. According to the case of the respondent landlord, the tenancy was created by a lease executed on 25th August, 1965 by the predecessor in title of the respondent. The respondent purchased the property in the year 1988. 2. It was contended in the suit that the applicant was having a booking office in the suit premises and by closing the said office on 25th May, 1995 , the applicant shifted its office to another premises in Pune. It was contended that the suit premises was let out only for the purpose of running booking office and the suit premises was not used continuously for a period of more than six months prior to institution of the suit for the purpose for which it was let out without any sufficient cause. It was contended that from 25th May, 1995 the suit premises is kept closed and unused continuously for a period of more than six months prior to the institution of suit without any vsa 2 CRA 1014_2010 reasonable cause. 3. The suit for eviction was accordingly filed by the respondent against the applicant on 30th November, 1995. Apart from the ground of non-user, the possession was sought also on the ground of bonafide requirement. 4. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it was contended that the suit premises was let out to the applicant for using the same for its normal business and connected offices. While dealing with the allegations of non-user, it was contended that work of renovation and repairs in the suit premises was going on and at the same time, some sections of the applicants were functioning from the suit premises whereas other sections were shifted. It was contended that the suit premises was being used for office purposes as well as as a godown for storage of record . Both the Courts below have passed the decree on the ground of non-user. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has taken the Court through the judgment of both the Courts below. He submitted that as far as the purpose of letting is concerned, the respondent did not adduce any evidence and the Courts below have proceeded on erroneous assumption that purpose of letting was for using the same as a booking office. He submitted that without even original lease being brought before the Court, there was no warrant to presume that the purpose of letting was as pleaded by the respondent. He submitted that use as a godown for storage of record was also permissible. He submitted that the Accounts Section was also functioning in the suit premises during the relevant period during which non-user has been alleged. He submitted that in those days the computers were not used. He submitted that the findings on the issue of purpose of letting and consequently on the issue of non-user recorded by both the Courts below are perverse. vsa 3 CRA 1014_2010 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint shows that the specific case is that the user of the suit premises has been stopped from 25th May, 1995. The specific allegation made in paragraph 3 is that continuously for a period of last six months the suit premises is closed. Apart from the said allegation, it is stated that the suit premises has not been used for the purpose for which the same is let out. The same assertions are reiterated in paragraph 4 of the plaint. While dealing with paragraph 3 of the plaint, the case of the applicant was that the repair work was going on in the suit premises, though some of the offices were shifted to the new premises, certain sections of the applicant were functioning from the suit premises. 7. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below based on the evidence on record. The first finding of fact is that the electricity to the suit premises was disconnected during the relevant period. The finding is that this fact is corroborated by electricity bills on record, which show that during the relevant period for which non-user was alleged, not a single unit has been consumed by the applicant in the suit premises. The second finding recorded on the basis of documentary evidence is that all telephone connections in the suit premises were shifted and there was no telephone connection available to the suit premises during the relevant period. The specific case of the applicant is that during the relevant period, certain sections of the office of the applicant were functioning in the suit premises. The finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below and especially by the Appellate Court is that in absence of electricity connection and telephone connection, it is impossible to accept the case that certain sections of the office of the Applicant were functioning in the suit premises. There is one more aspect which is considered by the Courts below and especially the Trial Court. Though the case of the applicant was that suit premises was used as a godown for storage of record, no stock register was vsa 4 CRA 1014_2010 produced before the Court. The Trial Court dealt with the case of the applicant that four persons were sitting in the suit premises, out of which one was Assistant Manager, two were Assistants and one was a peon. However, the muster roll and Attendance register signed by them was not produced. Even the case that an Assistant Manager was sitting in the suit premises during the relevant period is unbelievable when there was no electricity supply and telephone connection in the suit premises. Therefore, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, there are concurrent findings recorded that there was complete non-user for a period of more than 6 months before the institution of the suit and there was no sufficient cause even pleaded for this non-user. Therefore, Clause (k) of Sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was squarely attracted. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 8. It must be noted that the Civil Application No. 422 of 2007 was filed by the Applicant for additional evidence to bring on record a copy of indenture of lease to show as to what was the purpose of letting. Even if the said document is considered, the concurrent findings of fact are that there was a complete non-user for the statutory period of six months and more. The Revision Application is rejected. Civil Application No. 422 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 9. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the ad-interim relief granted earlier will continue to operate for a period of three months from today. (A.S.OKA, J)