1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (C) NO.5/2011 in CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 47/2010 (Shri Madhukar Ramchandra Bansod and another vrs. Shri Surendra Yeshwantrao Admane) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri Amit Prasad, counsel for applicant Shri P.K.Mishra, counsel for Respondent ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2011. 1] By this application, the applicant is seeking review of the order dated 13th July, 2010, passed by this Court, dismissing Civil Revision Application No. 47/2010. While dismissing the Civil Revision Application, this Court in its order dated 13th July, 2010, has recorded that since the applicant has failed to proceed with the Civil Revision Application, the same was dismissed, maintaining the order impugned in the Civil Revision Application. Hence, this civil application is 2 treated as one for restoration. 4] For the reasons stated in this application, the application is allowed. The Civil Revision Application is restored. 3] Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the Civil Revision Application on merits. 4] The Civil Revision Application challenges the order dated 2nd February, 2010, passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, in R.C.S. No. 112/2006. It was a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act for recovery of possession by the respondent/ plaintiff from the applicant/appellant. 5] In the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has proved that he was the tenant of the defendants and was in lawful possession of the suit 3 shop till 13.10.2005. Further finding is recorded that defendants have forcefully evicted the plaintiff on 13.10.2005 and hence, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled for restoration of the suit shop. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of the plaintiff and his brother-in-law PW-2 Bhushan Shankarrao Dadwe. 6] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court has committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW-2, the brother- in-law of the plaintiff, as he was an interested witness. 7] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the oral evidence of the witness examined by the plaintiff and also the oral evidence of the witness examined by the defendants. The learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that the plaintiff was the tenant of the defendants. However, the plea is raised that on 8.10.2005, the plaintiff has surrendered the tenancy to the defendants. In view 4 of this stand taken by the defendant, the burden was upon the defendant to establish the plea of surrender of tenancy. After going through the evidence on record, it seems that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the plea of surrender of tenancy. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence led by the plaintiff. The oral evidence of brother-in-law of the plaintiff could not be ignored as he does his business in the same premises. The trial Court has considered the evidence available on record and on its appreciation, the findings of facts are recorded, holding that the plaintiff was forcefully dispossessed from the suit shop on 13.10.2005. 8] Hence, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the trial Court. In view of above, the revision is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit