1 cra579-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.579 OF 2009 Sitaram Narayan Mahale (since deceased, through his legal heir) ..Applicant Vs Ravindra Madhusuda Mandhare and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.N.P.Deshpande, for applicant. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, for respondent nos.1 to 4. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22 nd NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2] The applicant is the original defendant – tenant and the respondents are the plaintiffs – landlords. The suit for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 was filed on the ground of non user. The suit was filed in July, 2005 contending that from 23 rd April, 2002 the suit premises is kept locked and is not being used without any sufficient cause for the purpose for which it is 2 cra579-09.sxw let out. The applicant filed written statement denying the said allegations. It was contended that the stair case leading to the suit premises was locked by the plaintiff which prevented the applicants from entering the suit premises. The courts have passed a decree for possession on the ground of non user. 3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant examined a maid servant and a Medical Practitioner to prove that the stair case was locked by the respondents which prevented entry of the applicant in the suit premises. He submitted that the appellate Court has not specifically dealt with the evidence of two witnesses who proved the fact that the stair case was locked. He submitted that even assuming that there is a non user, sufficient cause for non-user has been proved. 4] I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the notes of evidence. The suit is filed in the July, 2005 which alleges non-user for the period of more than 3 years from 23 rd April, 2002. Both the witnesses who are examined by the applicant had deposed that from March, 2005 onwards, the stair case leading to the suit premises, has been allegedly locked. In the evidence of the applicant, he has not come out with a specific case that the stair case was locked from a particular month or from a particular year. In the cross-examination, the applicant admitted that he has not lodged any complaint either to the respondents or to the police regarding closer of the stair case. The trial Court found that even the cooking gas in the suit premises was transferred in January, 2005. The trial Court has disbelieved the case made out by the applicant 3 cra579-09.sxw that the staircase was closed from March, 2005. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the two witnesses. The evidence of the parties was considered in detail by the trial Court while recording elaborate findings. The appellate Court has recorded a general agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The appellate Court has noted that though the applicant claimed that he was occupying the suit premises till March, 2005, he could not produce water Bills or electricity bills for prior to March, 2005. He admitted that he has transferred gas connection standing at the address of the suit premises prior to two or three years. The finding of fact recorded is that the applicant has failed to produce the evidence in form of water bill and / or electricity bill to support his case that he was occupying the suit premises at least till March, 2005. 5] In view of the above finding of fact recorded by the courts below, no case is made out for interference. Civil Revision Application is rejected. Decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of three months from today, subject to the condition that the applicant will not part with possession of the suit premises and will not create any third party interests in respect of the suit premises. [A.S.OKA, J]