1 CRA 275/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.275 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.744 OF 2003 Dr. Shailendra Purushottam Wagle .... Applicant Pune Vs. Mr. Sadguru Mahadev Nabar & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. D.G. Aras, Advocate for applicant. None for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 5th August, 2010 P.C. 1. This application is filed against concurrent findings of facts by the trial Court i.e. Court of Small Causes, Pune and the appellate court i.e. the District Court, Pune holding that the applicant has failed to establish any of the grounds of eviction of the respondents and dismissal of the suit for eviction, on that count. 2. The proceedings for eviction as filed originally were based on three grounds disclaimer of title, arrears of rent and subletting of demised premises. During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant gave up the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and prosecuted the suit on 2 CRA 275/2010 the remaining two grounds. 3. It is undisputed position that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises was granted by the father of the applicant to the father of respondents no. 1 and 2. The applicant claims to have become entitled to the demised premises by virtue of the will executed by his father. In their first written statement, the respondents contended, at paragraph 3, that they have no knowledge of the will and put the applicant in strict proof of the same. Thereafter, the applicant amended his plaint to claim an additional ground of eviction of disclaimer of title. The respondents then filed additional written statement contending that they had never denied that the original landlord was the father of the applicant. What was being contended by the respondents was that the applicant being one of the heirs of the original landlord cannot maintain his suit against the tenant for eviction. These pleadings by themselves are more than sufficient to reject the claim for possession made by the applicant on the ground of disclaimer of title. It is obvious that the respondents have neither disputed the title of the landlord nor the relationship of the applicant to the original landlord. Therefore, I find no substance in the challenge to the impugned orders relating to the first ground of eviction. 4. As regards the second ground of eviction, it has been the contention of the respondents that the tenancy in respect of the demised 3 CRA 275/2010 premises was taken for the benefit of the family though the rent receipt stood in the name of respondent no.1. Undisputedly respondent no.1 shifted from the premises in the year 1968 and started residing in Indore. Respondent no.2 his brother, has however continued to reside at demised premises along with his sister. The suit for eviction came to be filed in the year 1994. During this period, there was rent paid by the respondents, initially to the original landlord and after his death to the applicant. Both the Courts below have held on appreciation of the evidence on record, that the tenancy was obtained for the benefit of the family and have observed that the applicant apparently was not aware of the terms and conditions of the contract of tenancy between his father and father of respondents no.1 and 2. On perusal of the impugned orders, I find that both the grounds of eviction have been correctly appreciated by the courts below. The findings of facts recorded by the courts below are supported by the material on record. The view taken by the courts below is a reasonable and possible view and the same cannot be re- appreciated by this court, in its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)