-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2006 Bansilal Chaganlal, .. Petitioners. .. Petitioners. .. Petitioners. Vs 1. Smt Janabai Keshav Ghah and anr. .. Respondents. .. Respondents. .. Respondents. Mr R.D.Sawant, for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 20.02.08. DATE : 20.02.08. DATE : 20.02.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the appellate court by which the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant has been allowed. The appeal was against the judgment and order passed by the trial court by which the suit was decreed. The suit was instituted by the petitioner-landlord for ejectment on the ground of default, as is available under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. I perused the judgment of the appellate court and more particularly page 12 of the judgment wherein the appellate court has considered whether the demand notice, allegedly sent by the petitioner-landlord, was ever received by the tenant. Mr.Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the RPAD packet was addressed -2- to the tenant so also the acknowledgement receipt on record shows the signature of the addressee which is sufficient to prove that the demand notice was served on the tenant and in view thereof the findings recorded by the appellate court are not sustainable in law. From perusal of the judgment and order material placed on record, it reveals that the RPAD packet containing the demand notice was returned with the endorsement "the addressee was not found" though the acknowledgement shows that it was purportedly signed by the addressee. Both these documents, which are the part of record, are not consistent with the case set up by the landlord. Insofar as the postal certificate in respect of the very same demand notice is concerned, the envelop shows the name of one Ragunath Chikhalkar and not of the tenant. Considering this material on record the appellate court has discarded the evidence led by the landlord in support of his case that the demand notice was in fact served on the tenant. I do not find any reason to interfere with these findings of fact which are based on the material on record. No case, in my opinion, is made out for interferance with the findings of fact recorded by the appellate court in the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. -3- (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)