1 cra472.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.472 OF 2010 Mohanlal Tekchandji Soni ...Applicant vs. Savitribai Govindrao Bhintade ...Respondent Ms Suhasini Mutalik for the applicant Mr.Pradeep Velkar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The applicant who is the tenant-defendant has filed this civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for challenging the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the Courts below. The trial court passed a decree on the ground that the applicant has not used the suit premises for the purposes for which the same was let out for a continuous period of more than six months from the date preceding to the date of filing the suit without any just and sufficient cause. 2 The suit premises is a single room on the first floor of the building more particularly described in the plaint. The suit premises has been let out for residential use. It must be stated here that in the appeal preferred by the applicant, not only that the decree on the ground of non user has been confirmed, but on the basis of the submissions made by the respondent, 2 cra472.sxw the Appellate Court recorded a finding on the issue of bona fide requirement in favour of the respondent. The trial court had negatived the said ground. As far as comparative hardship is concerned, the trial Court had not held in favour of the respondent. Even on the said aspect, a finding has been recorded in favour of the respondent. Various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the revision application. The first contention raised is that bonafide need is not at all established. The second contention is that the finding on the issue of non user is totally incorrect and especially the finding regarding the consumption shown in the electricity bills. The learned counsel submitted that on the face of it, the finding of non user is perverse. She submitted that the finding on the electricity bills at Exh.50 and 51 are totally erroneous. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. As far as ground of non user is concerned, the respondent has alleged a non user for a period of more than six months prior to the date of institution of suit. Thus, the non-user alleged is for a period of more than six months prior to 2nd January 2003 which is the date of filing the suit. The Courts below and especially the Appellate Court has considered various factual aspects which are borne out from the documents on record. The Appellate Court observed that initially the suit summons was issued at the instance of the respondent at the address which is different from the address of the suit premises. As the said address could not be traced out, the summons was issued at the address of the suit premises. The report dated 27th August 2003 of the Court Bailiff shows that at the time of visit, the suit premises was found locked. Even the subsequent report 3 cra472.sxw dated 14th November 2003 shows that the suit premises was found locked. It is true that only on this ground, a decree on the ground of non user could not have been passed but there is other material which is considered by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court. It is true that the electricity bills at Exh-50 and 51 which show zero meter reading are for the months of November 2005 and December 2005. However, the trial Court as well as Appellate Court had made a reference to the admissions by the applicant in his cross examination. In the cross examination, the applicant admitted that he was possessing the electricity bills for the period between June 2002 to January 2003. The applicant had expressed his willingness to produce the said bills. However, the bills for the said period which was the most crucial period were not produced by the applicant. He also admitted of not possessing any bills for purchase of household articles during the period from June 2002 and January 2003. In the cross examination the applicant admitted that the bills at Exh.50 and 51 which show nil consumption are in respect of electric meter of the suit premises. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court observed that the bills for the relevant period were not produced by the applicant. 4 Thus, the facts borne out from the evidence on record which are considered by the Courts below are that:- i) Though the applicant was in possession of the electricity bills for the period of six months prior to the date of institution of the suit, the same were not produced. ii)At least on two occasions, an attempt was made to serve the suit summons at the address of the petitioner but the same was found to be locked. 4 cra472.sxw iii)The electricity bills produced for November and December 2005 show that there was nil consumption. iv)In the cross examination, the applicant admitted that he was not possessing any bills of purchase of any household articles during the relevant period of six months. 5 Therefore, the Courts below have drawn correct inference of non user for a period more than six months prior to institution of the suit. It is not the case of the applicant that non-user was for any sufficient cause. Thus, there is a clear concurrent finding on the issue of non user by the Courts below which is based on oral and documentary evidence on record. The said finding cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. As the decree on the ground of non user is required to be confirmed, it is not necessary to go into the other challenge in the revision application on the finding of bona fide need. Revision application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE