WP. 2529-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2529 OF 2011 Kishore S. Kshirasagar ...Petitioner Vs. Prabhakar S. Kadam ...Respondent *** Mr. A. S. Pandey, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. Petitioner is the original defendant/tenant and respondent is the original plaintiff/landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’. 2. The plaintiff/landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and arrears of rent. The suit-summons was served on the defendant and according to the plaintiff, WP. 2529-11 - 2 - the defendant’s adult son accepted the writ of summons. The trial Court passed an exparte decree on merits against the defendant/tenant. This order was challenged by preferring an appeal in the District Court. The Appeal was also dismissed and being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant/tenant has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is submitted that the defendant’s son had studied upto 7th standard and therefore, could not have signed the said writ of summons, as alleged by the plaintiff. It is submitted that both the Courts below had erred in holding that the suit summons was served on the defendant. He submitted that without taking into consideration this fact, the lower Appellate Court had dismissed the Appeal, filed by the defendant/tenant. It is submitted that opportunity ought to have been given to defendant to contest the case on merits. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the summons was duly served on one of the adult member of the defendant’s family and this fact was not challenged in appeal. It is submitted that though the appeal was pending for five years before the lower Appellate Court, no application was filed for leading the evidence before the Appellate Court. It is submitted that WP. 2529-11 - 3 - defendant had an alternate premises where he was residing along with his family and he used to come to this place occasionally. It is submitted that therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In my view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Under Order V, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, service of summons on one of the adult members of the family is a good service. In spite of service of summons, the defendant did not appear in the trial Court and challenge the said order by filing an appeal. Both the Courts have arrived at conclusion that there was proper service of writ of summons and therefore, there is concurrent finding of fact on this issue. It will not be possible for this Court to arrive at different conclusion. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court has also considered the evidence of the plaintiff on merits and has accepted case of bona fide requirement, made out by the plaintiff and has considered the issue of comparative hardship also. No case is made out for interference with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]