1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 2634 of 2011 Nathuram Budhaji Karade Vs. Shashikant Tukaram RAipure - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th October, 2011. Heard. Both the courts had concurrently held that the petitioner- landlord had forcibly dispossessed the tenant and hence the tenant was entitled to recover the possession of the suit block. It was the case of the respondent that the respondent was in possession of the tenanted premises till 9.11.2004 but the petitioner-landlord illegally dispossessed him from the suit premises without following the due process of law. The petitioner- landlord came up with the case that the respondent tenant had approached the landlord and requested him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for vacating the shop premises. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent received Rs.50,000/- for surrendering the tenancy and there was no illegal dispossession of the respondent from the shop premises. The trial court and the first appellate court on an appreciation of the evidence on record recorded a categorical finding that the respondent had been illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner from the shop premises. The courts 2 believed the case of the respondent that the respondent had closed the shop premises on 9.1.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. and was surprised to see on the next day that his locks were replaced by the locks of the petitioner and the goods of the respondent were thrown on the road. Though the landlord had pleaded that he had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent for vacating the suit premises, the courts rightly disbelieved the case of the landlord as no receipt or documentary proof in regard to payment of Rs.50,000/- was placed by the petitioner on record. The courts held that the landlord could have legally paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the tenant for surrendering the tenancy right and would have surely obtained a receipt for the payment of the same specially when it was a huge amount. The courts also perused the statement of bank account of the petitioner to find that the case of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent, was incredible. The courts rightly held on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner did not inspire confidence. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.