1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3309 OF 2009 Mohd. s/o. Ghisu ... Petitioner vs. Sharfuddin Kayamuddin & Ors. Respondents Mr. N.R.Bubna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. A.T. Javeri, APP, for the respondent No.4 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 17th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. One Kayamuddin, father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, was in occupation of a shop as a lawful tenant. In the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. his contention was that in the year 1993, his son, who was running the tailoring shop in the premises, had gone to Surat and in his absence, said Kayamuddin had requested Mohd. Ghisu, the present petitioner, just to take care of the property. In the year 2000, his son came back and he requested the petitioner to hand over the key of the shop which he refused and tried to induct a third person as a tenant. 2 Later on, Kayamuddin took back possession of the shop. The matter was reported to police and police filed proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. During the said proceeding, the property was attached and sealed. In the said proceeding, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate held that party No.1 i.e.father of the respondents was entitled to be in possession as he was in possession before the proceedings and accordingly, he directed that the possession of the premises be handed over to the party No.1. That order was challenged by the party No.2 i.e. petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.120/2001. The Revision Application came to be rejected on 28.7.2009 by the Sessions Court upholding the findings of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. 3. In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the present petitioner had stated that he had purchased the disputed premises from party No.1 Kayamuddin for consideration of Rs.31,786/-, but he did not produce any document to support this contention. Thereafter, in his reply dated 5.2.2001, he pleaded that he had purchased the land under construction for consideration of Rs.6,000/- from Madhavrao Bhagwantrao Rajebahadur about which a Sauda-Pavati was prepared and executed and he produced a Sauda-Pavati which was neither registered nor it was executed by Madhavrao Rajebahadur. It purported to have been signed by one Narayan but not by Madhavrao. No 3 evidence was produced to show that the petitioner had made the construction on the land allegedly purchased by him. Thus, the pleadings and the evidence led by the present petitioner were self-contradictory and inconsistent and not reliable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that there was voluminous documentary evidence to show that Kayamuddin was a tenant and in possession of the premises for long time. 4. Thus the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge have given concurrent findings that the present petitioner could not produce any document in support of his claim and that his pleas were self- contradictory and inconsistent. On the other hand, there was sufficient documentary evidence in support of the claim of Kayamuddin. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in Writ Jurisdiction. 5. Therefore, the Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)