1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2008 Shri Padmappa Salian ... Petitioner Versus Shri Ramdas Nathu Bhoir(Karta of HUF) Respondents Mr. Shivaprasad Shetty, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sameer Tambekar i/b. Mr. S.D.Patil, Advocates, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 24th November, 2008. DATE: 24th November, 2008. DATE: 24th November, 2008. P.C P.C P.C 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.200 of 2003 filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the purpose of eviction and possession. The plaintiff had contended that the 2 defendant was in arrears of rent since July, 2003 and that he was not using the premises since June 2002 and that he had obtained alternative accommodation. The trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had obtained alternative accommodation and he was in arrears of rent. The issue in respect of non-user of the house was answered in the negative. Against the decree, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.134 of 2006. The Appeal also came to be dismissed. There is concurrent finding of fact on all the issues. The defendant has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the same. 3. It is material to note that according to the defendant, his family was living in the suit house while he himself was away from India in connection with service. The Courts below also held that the suit house was used by the defendant’s family. During the argument before this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice terminating the tenancy was not properly served. From the record it appears that the notice was sent to the plaintiff by registered post at the address of the suit premises. The envelope was returned by the Postal authorities which indicated that the Postman had been to the suit premises to tender the envelope thrice, but it was not 3 accepted on the ground that the defendant had left the place. Inspite of the intimation, neither the defendant nor anybody on his behalf claimed that notice and accordingly it was returned. Both the Courts held that it was a valid service. In view of the concurrent findings of facts on all the issues, in the writ petition this Court cannot interfere in its findings unless it could be pointed out that the findings are perverse, illegal or totally against the evidence. There is nothing to show that the said findings are perverse or against record. In fact, in such Rent Act matters, there is no provision for second appeal. Even second appeal, where it is permissible under the law, can be admitted only if there is question of law involved. No such question of law is involved in the matter. 4. Therefore, I find that there is no substance in the petition and the petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)