1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3745 OF 2009, 1. ASHOK RAMASA DHAGE AGED 59 YRS., OCCU.: BUSINESS, R/O. BEHIND SHIVAJI STATUTE, BULDANA. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. BABANAPPA NARAYANAPPA DUKANDAR, AGED 61 YRS., OCCU.:TAILORING, R/O. KHAMGAON, DISTT. BULDANA. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri G.H.Ingle, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 02, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. This petition by a tenant is directed against concurrent findings of the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court, holding that the petitioner had himself terminated tenancy w.e.f. 30th June, 1996 by notice dated 30th January, 1995. This notice was proved to have been signed by the petitioner by the respondent’s examining hand-writing expert. The petitioner’s contention that just five days before this notice was given, the respondent had given no 2 objection in writing to the petitioner to obtain electricity connection and therefore, it was not probable that the petitioner would give a notice of termination of tenancy, was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. The notice of termination of tenancy was to come into force 1-1/2 years after it was given and therefore, it is not improbable that the landlord permitted the tenant to have electricity connection for the remaining period of the lease and the tenant agreed to have the lease terminated. 3. The view taken by both the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or irrational in order to justify invocation of writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.