1cra-83-08 ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 83 OF 2008 Tanaji Murlidhar Bankar ..Petitioner/Orig.Appellant (Defendant No.1.) vs. Shri Pratapgir Keshavgir Gosavi and Ors ..Respondents. Mr M.S. Karnik , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr R.M. Hardas i/b P.N. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM:A.R.JOSHI,J DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Heard rival submissions for some time. It is the Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendant no.1 challenging the impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2cra-83-08 315/2005 decided by the Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Niphad (first Appellate Court) dated 28.8.2007. Said appeal is preferred by the present petitioner-original defendant no.1 which was dismissed with costs. Said appeal was earlier preferred challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S.No. 127/1998 by the Civil Judge, J.D., Pimpalgaon, District Nashik (the Trial Court for short) on 30-6-2005. 3. Initially, the suit was filed by the present respondent No.1- original plaintiff against the present petitioner defendant no.1 for recovery of possession of tenanted premises on the ground of arrears of rent – non user. This was the initial stage of the suit. Subsequently, the amendment was done and co-tenant – defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were added as party defendants on the premise that defendant No.1 sub-letted the premises to them. It was the contention of defendant No.1 that they were not sub-tenants of the premises but they were the partners in the business which was run by defendant No.1 from the said premises. After the amendment third ground for the eviction was pleaded as to sub-letting. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the petitioner (original defendant No.1) submitted that there was certain discrepancy in a number of months for which the subsequent payment of monthly rent 3cra-83-08 after the filing of the suit and such discrepancy has not been answered. It is pointed out that as per the Trial Court, subsequent rent was not paid by defendant No.1 from October, 1999 to January, 2002, whereas according to the first appellate court the suit period was from 20-7-1999 to 22-8-2008. By pointing out this discrepancy, it is submitted that the matter is required to be reconsidered in revisional jurisdiction in order to ascertain the first ground of eviction as to the default in payment of rent. In this context, it must be mentioned that both the earlier Courts have held failure of defendant No.1 to deposit all the arrears of the rent along with interest @ 9% in view of the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Bombay Rent Act”). As such in view of such concurrent finding though there is certain discrepancy regarding for which month’s subsequently there was non payment of rent, will not be of much significance so far as dealing the present matter in the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Regarding the second aspect as to sub-letting, again there is concurrent finding by the earlier two courts. It is an admitted position that original defendant Nos. 2,3 and 4 to whom allegedly the premises was sub-letted by defendant No.1, did not examine themselves. Even 4cra-83-08 the initial judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was not challenged by them, much less defending the matter at the appellate stage before this Court. Admittedly, there was no any deed of partnership produced in order to establish defence of defendant No.1 that there was no sub-letting but allowing defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to join the business of defendant No.1 as partners. Again, in view of the concurrent finding on this second issue also, there is no legal necessity to interfere in the concurrent finding and in that event present Civil Revision Application is disposed of, as under:- 6. Civil Revision Application is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. All the interim orders shall stand vacated. (A.R.JOSHI,J)