1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5320 OF 2009 Shri Shankar Bhau Bhosale ... Petitioner v/s Smt.Banubai Raghunath Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.B.A.Walimbe for the petitioner. Mr.Pratap Patil for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and has therefore approached this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the 1st respondent and contends that he has been in possession and is cultivating the land as the 2 tenant since the year 1936. 2. On two occasions earlier the landlady sought to evict the petitioner and failed in her attempts. It appears that subsequent to these attempts, respondent No.1 issued a notice on 12.12.2002 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that, (1) default in payment of rent, (2) willful subletting and sub-dividing; and (3) that the tenants have failed to cultivate the land. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner before the Tenancy Court. The findings recorded by the Tenancy Court in Tenancy Case No.2 of 2003 are that the petitioner had sublet the premises to some other person and was not personally cultivating the lands. The Tenancy Court negated the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision in the aforesaid tenancy case, the petitioner preferred tenancy appeal NO.5 OF 2004 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khanapur. This appeal met with the same fate and was dismissed. The Sub-Divisional Officer concurred with the findings recorded by the tenancy Court that the petitioner had sublet the premises. The Revenue Tribunal before whom the petitioner had preferred a revision application has concurred with this finding of fact. 3 3. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner has failed to cross-examine the witnesses who were examined by the landlady to prove subletting. The tenancy Court has, therefore, believed the evidence of the landlady and held that the petitioner had sublet the premises. 4. In these circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders under writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. As regards the issue of limitation, the learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the proceedings were initiated in the Tenancy Court in March, 2003 whereas the subletting has allegedly taken place on 1.12.2000. According to the learned advocate, the action should have been initiated within two years of the alleged date of subletting and not having done so, the petitioner must succeed in the matter. He relies on the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Chimanabaj Rama Naik & ors. v/s Ganpat Jagannath Naik & ors., reported in 1959 BCI (0) 126, in which it has been held that the right to obtain 4 possession of the land must be deemed to have been accrued to the landlord on the date on which the land was sub-let. In my opinion, this judgment could have no application. A notice has been issued in accordance with the provisions of Sections 14 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act and, therefore, the action has been initiated within the period of limitation. 6. Writ petition rejected. .....