1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application No. 117 of 2007 [K.R. Lande Vs. N.N. Prasad Sharma] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Sudhir Malode, Advocate for the Applicant- Petitioner. Mr. M.B. Naidu, Advocate for the respondent sole. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 08th April,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decree of eviction and arrears of rent as confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 3. The petitioner raises a star ground and only challenge, which can be stated, in nutshell, is as follows:- [a] The petitioner is not a tenant of the plaintiff. [b] Petitioner himself is owner and, therefore, plaintiff's suit is without title and hence not maintainable. 2 4. Defendant has spelt out his defence in his specific defence taken in paras 15 and 16 of the Written Statement. Written Statement is not filed on record, however, it was tendered in the Court. The aforesaid averments read as follows:- “15. That, the plot in dispute was owned and possessed by one Narsinghdas Laddhad. The defendant had taken this plot from said Narsinghdas Laddhad on rent at the rate of 25.00 per month in or about the year 1965-66. It was taken by the defendant for residential purpose as also for running his hotel. In the same year i.e., 1965- 66, the defendant erected a temporary shed thereon and since then the defendant is residing in some of the portion of the constructed portion and is running a hotel in the remaining portion thereof. Thus the defendant was the tenant of Narsinghdas Laddhad.” “16. That, by a registered sale- deed dated 25-3-1988 the defendant has purchased the disputed plot from Shri Mohandas Narsinghdas Laddhad, the son of deceased Narsinghdas Laddhad for a consideration of Rs.5000.00 and since then the plaintiff is the exclusive owner thereof under the sale-deed and his possession over the suit plot since 25.3.1988 is that of a owner.” 5. The petitioner has, thus, tried to set up independent title. 3 6. The said plea of the defednant was not proved by him. 7. Trial Court discussed defendant's evidence and found that he has failed to prove his defence. 8. The findings are confirmed by the Appellate Court. Those are not shown to be contrary to evidence on record, or otherwise illegal. 9. In the circumstances, Civil Revision Application does not call for interference. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau|