wp1104.90 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1104 OF 1990 Hanmant s/o vitthalrao Ghodke Age 47 years, Occ. Tailor R/o. Lokhand Galli, Latur, Tq. and District Latur ...Petitioner Versus Chandrashekhar Malikarjunappa Bidwe, Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Lokhand Galli, Latur District Latur ...Respondent ..... None for the petitioner as well as the respondent. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 7TH DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT :- 1 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9.3.1990, passed by the learned District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989. By the said judgment, the leaned District Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller in File No. 1987/RCA/0/24 dated 8.8.1989. 2 The petitioner herein is tenant and the respondent herein is the wp1104.90 -2- original landlord, who filed eviction petition for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of willful default in making payment for the suit premises of Municipal house No. 172/2 situated at Lokhand Galli, Latur. Since the eviction was sought only on the ground of willful default, the Rent Controller Latur framed only one issue i.e. Does the petitioner proves that respondent-tenant is willful defaulter? The said issue is answered by the Rent Controller in affirmative. 3 Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner herein filed Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989 before the learned District Court, at Latur. However, the learned District Judge, Latur has dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 4 This matter was listed for final hearing from time to time. It appears that on 23.8.2006, when the matter was called out for final hearing, none appeared for the petitioner, the matter was dismissed in default. It further appears that the application was filed by the petitioner for restoration of writ petition. Taking lenient view in the matter, this Court restored the petition at its original file. Again the matter was listed for final hearing on 21.4.2008, on the said date also none appeared for the petitioner. Again the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter, another civil application was filed by the petitioner for restoration of the petition. Accordingly, wp1104.90 -3- this Court, for the second time taking lenient view in the matter has restored the writ petition at its original position. It appears that though the matter is listed for final hearing from time to time, the counsel for the petitioner has not taken steps to appear in the matter and argued the matter on merits. The matter was again listed on 3.5.2010, none was present for the petitioner and therefore, the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. Again counsel for the petitioner, for the third time, filed application for restoration of writ petition. This Court taking a lenient view in the matter has restored the petition to its original file subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. This matter was heard on 2.12.2010 and at the specific request of the counsel for the petitioner, it was adjourned to 6.12.2010 to enable him to argue the matter. However, when the matter was called out on 6.12.2010, the court time was over and therefore, the matter is posted for final hearing today as part heard. However, even after waiting for 15 minutes, none appears for the petitioner. 5 On perusal of the order passed by the Rent Controller, it appears that the landlord who is respondent herein examined himself and one witness viz. Rawan Irrappa Chakore and also some receipts were filed by the landlord on record. On the basis of the statement of wp1104.90 -4- witnesses and documentary evidence in the form of receipts, the Court recorded certain findings and arrived at the conclusion that the rent which was agreed between the parties was Rs.700/- per year. The Rent controller, after appreciation of evidence bought on record held that the petitioner is willful defaulter. The learned District Judge in appeal has once again appreciated the rival contentions and recorded certain findings that the decree for arrears of rent has been passed by the Civil Court through Small Cause Suit No. 119 of 1987 and so also there is another suit bearing Small Cause Suit No. 33 of 1989 again for recovery of further arrears of rent. The learned District Judge has taken a note of the decree for arrears in Small Cause Suit No. 119 of 1987. The District Court has considered the documentary evidence placed on record and observed that the petitioner herein who is original tenant allowed a full decree to be passed and has not taken any steps to deposit the rent amount. 6 The learned District Judge taking over all view of the matter has recorded the correct findings that the default on the part of the petitioner original tenant is willful default. The learned District Judge has observed that there is no payment till the decree was executed. The long period of non payment has also considered by the learned District Judge. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the petitioner herein is willful defaulter. On perusal of the wp1104.90 -5- findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the learned District Judge, in my opinion, no perversity is shown. Even on independent scrutiny and after going through the grounds taken in the petition, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the learned District Judge, are consistent with the evidence brought on record by the parties. The courts below have taken possible view. Hence, no interference is warranted. Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any stands vacated. Record and proceeding, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court. *****