1 ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 453 of 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 454 OF 2010 Mr. Pravin Babulal Sali. .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Mangesh Shripad Chandratre & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Nikhil Karnawat for the Petitioner. Shri S.S. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : . These Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order as the Petitions arise out of the cross suits filed by the parties. The first Respondent filed a Civil Suit No.109 of 2008 against the Petitioner and the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. The suit relates to the shop premises admeasuring 92 sq. feet situated on the ground floor of the building standing on the land bearing Survey No.29, Budhwar Peth, Pune. The said shop is hereinafter referred to as the suit premises. The 1st Respondent claims that he is a monthly tenant of the suit premises and that the 2nd and the 3rd 2 Respondents are the landlords. According to his case, the Petitioner is an agent of the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. According to the case of the 1st Respondent, his grandfather Trimbak Rangnath Chandratre was a monthly tenant of the suit premises of one Shri Shantaram Narayan Nagarkar who was the original landlord. The said Trimbak was running a business in the suit premises in the name and style of M/s. Friends Watch Company. After demise of the said Trimbak , the 1st Respondent’s father continued the same business in the suit premises. The rent receipts were being issued thereafter in the name of the father of the 1st Respondent. The case of the 1st Respondent is that he was carrying on business along with his father in the suit premises and that at the time of demise of his father, he was conducting the business along with his father. It is his case that after demise of his father, the earlier landlord Shri Nagarkar was issuing rent receipts in his name. Some times in the year 1994, the 1st Respondent started business of sale of text books, note books, stationary, etc. in the name and style of M/s. Friends Book Center. It is stated that the 1st Respondent has obtained a shop Act licence in the said name and he is having STD booth in the suit premises. Reliance is placed on the last rent receipt issued by Shri Nagarkar on 29th July, 1997. According to the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent approached him in June, 2007 and informed that the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents have purchased the suit premises from one Mrs. Jogalekar who had purchased the same from the legal representatives of the original landlord Shri Nagarkar. The case of the 1st Respondent is that he 3 paid rent for the period from 1st January, 1998 to 31st July, 2008 to the 2nd Respondent by a cheque drawn in favour of the 2nd Respondent which was duly encashed. 2. The case of the 1st Respondent is that in January, 2008, the Petitioner approached him and stated that the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents were intending to let out the suit premises to him and threatened the 1st Respondent to vacate the suit premises. The Petitioner claimed that the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents have authorised him to evict the 1st Respondent from the suit premises. A threat of dire consequences was given by the Petitioner to the 1st Respondent. Therefore, the said suit was filed by the 1st Respondent for a declaration that the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents are not entitled to evict the 1st Respondent from the suit premises otherwise than by following due process of law. A perpetual injunction for protecting the possession of the 1st Respondent was claimed in the said suit. 3. The Petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 151 of 2008 against the Respondents. In the said suit, it was contended that the 1st Respondent’s father had sublet out the suit premises to the Petitioner in the year 1996-97. However, there was no written agreement of tenancy. It is alleged that the Petitioner is running a book shop in the suit premises under the name and style of “Friends Book Centre”. It is stated that the oral agreement was continued 4 with the 1st respondent. It stated that the landlord sold the property to one Jogalekar who in turn sold the suit premises to the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. It is alleged that the Petitioner negotiated with the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents and ultimately on 19th August, 2006 a rent note was executed by and between the Petitioner on one hand and the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents on the other hand. The Petitioner claimed that thus he became monthly tenant of the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents and has been paying rent to the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. The Plaintiff claimed a declaration that the 1st Respondent was not his landlord and that he is not entitled to recover any rent from him. The Petitioner prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from dispossessing him from the suit premises. 4. In the suits filed by the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, there were an applications for temporary injunction made which were contested by the rival parties. The Applications for injunction were heard together and by an order dated 8th April, 2009, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for injunction filed by the 1st Respondent and rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner. A prima facie finding was recorded that the 1st Respondent was in possession. There were two appeals preferred by the Petitioner before the District Court. By the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2009, the appeals were dismissed. The Petitioner preferred two Writ Petitions in this Court. By an order dated 1st October, 5 2009, by consent of the parties, an order of remand was passed by this Court with a direction to District Court hear the appeals afresh. The District Court was directed to consider the documents filed before the said Court. The appeals were reheard and by the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2010, the appeals were dismissed. These are the orders impugned in these two Writ Petitions under Article 227 of Constitution. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of the Petitions submitted that even after the order of remand, the Appellate court has not considered the documents placed on record. He submitted that the Appellate Court has only reproduced a list of the documents but has not considered the contents of the documents and the effect thereof. He submitted that the Shop Act License was issued in favour of the Petitioner on 31st December, 2007. He submitted that there were invoices issued by book sellers in the name of M/s. Friends Book Centre which specifically contain the name of the Petitioner. He relied upon the invoices issued by the International Book House Private Limited containing the name of the Petitioner. He pointed out that even the invoices of Sharp Book Centre contained the name of the Petitioner. He pointed out that the Petitioner has produced a rent note executed by the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents and the rent receipts. He submitted that the 1st Respondent’s wife had lodged a police complaint making an allegation that on 31st December, 2007, the Petitioner 6 broke open the lock put up by the 1st Respondent and on the basis of the said complaint, letters of warning were issued by the concerned police station. He pointed out that in the said letters of warning, the address of the Petitioner is shown that of the suit premises. He submitted that the photographs were produced on record showing the possession of the petitioner. He submitted that apart from the aforesaid documents, some other documents were tendered on record to show that the Petitioner was in possession of the suit premises. He submitted that without referring to the contents of the documents, the Appellate Court has straightway rejected the case of the Petitioner by merely referring to the list of documents. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders will have to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the same are perverse. He submitted that the Petitioner was in a settled possession. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. & Anr., [ AIR 2004 SC 4609 ]. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sarladevi Widow of Kundeanlal Bandawar v. Shailesh S/o Gourishankar Namdeo, [AIR 1996 Bombay 98 ]. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent supported the impugned judgments and orders. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the 1st Respondent on 27th February, 2008. The Petitioner also filed a suit for a declaration and injunction 12th 7 March, 2008. The Petitioner has not disputed that the father of the 1st Respondent was the tenant in respect of the suit premises of the earlier landlord Shri Nagarkar. The case of the Petitioner is that in the year 1996-97, the 1st Respondent’s father sublet the suit premises to him by an oral agreement at the rent of Rs.7,500/- per month which was payable by him to the father of the 1st Respondent. The case of the 1st Respondent is that in the year 1994, he started business of sale of text books, note books, etc under the name and style of M/s. Friends book Centre. The case of the Petitioner is that after the suit premise was sublet to him in the year 1996-97, he started business of M/s. Friends Book Centre in the suit premises. His case is that after the demise of his father, the 1st Respondent accepted his sub-tenancy and the Petitioner started paying monthly rent to the 1st Respondent. The case of the Petitioner is that he was made a direct tenant of the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents on 19th August, 2006. Thus, the Petitioner is claiming that he was not inducted by the landlord but by the father of the 1st Respondent who was admittedly a tenant in possession of the suit premises. His case is that he was inducted as a sub-tenant by the father of the 1st Respondent in the year 1996-97 on monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- per month. It must be stated here that there is no prima facie evidence produced by the Petitioner to show that he had paid rent either to the father of the 1st Respondent or to the 1st Respondent. A bald statement is made that the father of the 1st Respondent was not issuing rent receipts for payment of Rs.7,500/- per month from the 8 year 1996-97 till the suit was filed. There is no letter written by the Petitioner either to the father of the 1st Respondent or to the 1st Respondent calling upon them to issue rent receipts. Thus, a doubt is created about the case made out by the Petitioner that he was inducted in the suit premises as sub-tenant by the father of the 1st Respondent. The Appellate Court in Paragraph 15 of the judgment has precisely recorded this that there is no evidence produced to show payments of Rs.7,500/- per month allegedly made by the Petitioner. Unless a prima facie evidence is produced to substantiate the case that he was inducted by the father of the 1st Respondent in the year 1996-97, the alleged direct tenancy created by the landlord in favour of the Petitioner is irrelevant inasmuch as even according to the case of the Petitioner, the father of the 1st Respondent was the tenant in possession of the suit premises. Moreover, the learned District Judge has observed that in the alleged rent note executed by the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents on 19th August, 2006, there is no reference to the fact that the Petitioner was already put in possession as the sub-tenant by the father of the 1st Respondent who was the tenant. In this context, the Appellate Court has observed that it is not the case of the Petitioner that the tenancy of the 1st Respondent was terminated and that no declaration to that effect has been claimed. This aspect is relevant as even according to the case of the Petitioner, the father of the 1st Respondent and thereafter the 1st Respondent was the tenant of the suit premises and the Petitioner was sub- tenant thereof. The suit filed by the Petitioner is not based on mere possession 9 but it is based on the alleged title as the sub-tenant of the 1st Respondent and subsequently as a direct tenant of the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. Therefore, it was necessary for the 1st Respondent to prima facie prove that he was inducted as a sub-tenant by the father of the 1st Respondent in the year 1996-97 as the sub-tenant on the rent of Rs.7,500/- per month. There is absolutely no documentary evidence and there is no evidence whatsoever of payment of Rs.7,500/- per month by the Petitioner to the 1st Respondent. Thus, a serious doubt is created about the very entry of the Petitioner in the suit premises. On the other hand, admittedly the 1st Respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises whose tenancy has not been terminated or determined. 7. Though the petitioner claims that the father of the 1st Respondent inducted him in the suit premises as the sub-tenant in the year 1996-97 and that he started business in the name and style of M/s. Friends Book Centre. The Shop Act Licence produced by the Petitioner is of 31st December, 2007. The rent receipts produced are issued by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from 2006 onwards. The Bank statement produced by the petitioner is for the period from 1st January, 2008. The receipts and invoices which are produced by the Petitioner are from the year 2007 onwards except the few receipts of. However, the said receipts of Sharp Book Centre do not contain the address of the suit premises. The certificate of Asian Book Private Limited produced 10 by the Petitioner does not bear any date. The certificates of Pradeep Book Depot, Vidya Book Centre and Patil Book Depot are of the year 2008. There are certain affidavits of book sellers, i.e. M/s. Vidya Book Centre and Pradeep Book Centre filed by the Petitioner. Though the bills of the said Book Centres are of the year 2008, in the affidavit filed in the year 2008, there is a vague statement that for the last five years, the books are being sold to the Petitioner. There is a similar affidavit filed by the Proprietor of Jagruti Book Agency. None of cash memo or invoices of the said Jagruti Book Agency have been produced. The invoices of International Book House Private Limited are of the year 2007 which contain only first name of the Petitioner. Only on the basis of the first name of the Petitioner, it is not possible to conclude that the invoices were issued to the Petitioner. As far as the photographs are concerned, authenticity thereof will have to be proved at the time of final hearing of the suit. The Appellate court considered the Sale Deed dated 17th February, 2005 executed by earlier landlord in favour of the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. In the schedule, the name of the tenant in respect of the suit premises is shown as M/s. Friends Watch Company ( which was the business of the father of the 1st Respondent ) and there is no reference to the name of the Petitioner or Friends Book Centre. The electricity bills also stand in the name of M/s. Friends Watch Company. A finding has been recorded that there is nothing on record to even prima facie show that the Petitioner is in possession from the year 1996-97. The letters issued by the police authorities 11 in the year 2007 will not help the Petitioner to establish prima facie case of creation of sub-tenancy in the year 1996-97. 8. Considering the admitted position that the father of the 1st Respondent was a tenant and after his demise the 1st Respondent became the tenant in respect of the suit premises, a finding has been recorded by both the Courts below that the Petitioner has failed to establish prima facie case. Correspondingly, considering the admitted position that the 1st Respondent was the tenant and there is no material on record to show that his tenancy was terminated by the landlord, the Courts below have granted temporary injunction for protecting his possession. Both the Courts below have considered the documents on record. In writ jurisdiction under Article 227 , no interference can be made with the tentative findings recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of the documentary evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the Writ Petitions and I pass the following order. The Writ Petitions are rejected. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, ad-interim relief granted on 12th March, 2010 will continue to operate till 25th June, 2010. JUDGE