IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.460/2010 BHOLA YADAO ..VS.. BOHARA MASJID TRUST Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 22 /12 / 2010 Heard Shri De, the larned counsel for the appellant and Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of rent. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was leased to the defendant by the lease deed dated 25.1.2001 and the defendant was liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.800/- to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the defendant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.28,400/- and hence the suit was instituted. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied the lease deed dated 25.1.2001. It was the case of the defendant that the defendant had advanced an amount of Rs.25000/- to the plaintiff and hence that amount was liable to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the lease deed dated 25.1.2001 showed that the lease period was for a period of more than on year and the lease deed was liable to be registered. The trial court held that since the same was not registered, the plaintiff could not have claimed the arrears of rent @ Rs.800/- per month on the basis of the lease deed. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The first appellate court on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the defendant was liable to pay the monthly rent of Rs.800/- to the plaintiff and was also liable to pay the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.28,400/-. According to the first appellate court, the lease deed did not show that the lease period was for a period of more than one year and hence the trial court was not justified in holding that the lease deed ought to have been registered. The first appellate court directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.28,400/- to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the lease deed, as also the evidence tendered by the defendant it appears that the first appellate court did not commit any error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The question whether the lease deed dated 25.1.2001 was a registered document or not was not material in t his case as the defendant had admitted in his cross examination that he was ready to pay the rent to the plaintiff @ Rs.800/- in case the amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by him to the plaintiff would be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. In view of this admission, it was not necessary for the courts to have considered whether the lease deed was for a period of one year or more. The first appellate court on an appreciation of evidence on record held that the defendant had not succeeded in proving that he had advanced the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff and that the amount was required to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. The findings recorded by the first appellate court on the issue of advancement of Rs.25,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff and the entitlement of the plaintiff to receive the arrears of rent are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since the findings of fact do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.