1 S.A.NO.02/1992. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.02 OF 1992. Shriram Radhakishan Agrawal, Age about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon. ...Appellant. (Ori.Defendant. ) Versus Chandrabai w/o Shamlal Agrawal since deceased per L.Rs. 1-Suryakant Shamlal Agrawal, Age: 50 years, R/o: Chopda, Taluka: Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon. ...Respondent. (Ori.Plaintiff.) ... Mr.S.C.Bora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.T.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date of reserving the Judgment: 23rd July, 2009. Date of pronouncing the Judgment:27th July,2009. JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal is filed against the two concurrent judgments decreeing the suit of the respondent. At the time, when the appeal was 2 S.A.NO.02/1992. admitted, no substantial question of law was formulated. So, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, I took up task of finding as to whether any substantial question of Law exists in this appeal. But after having gone through the record of the lower Court and having heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I realised that there is no substantial question of law in this appeal. Even a question of law is also not involved. Both the lower Courts mostly dealt with facts and believed the case of the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession against the appellant in respect of house properties described with CTS numbers namely CTS No.2288/B-1, 2288/B-2. The respondent plaintiff admittedly owned a cluster of three structure at Chopada (town) bearing CTS Nos. 2288/B-1, 2288/B-2, and 2289. It is the case of the respondent that he had given on rent, in 1965, the double storeyed structure bearing CTS No.2289 to the appellant. It is common ground that the structure CTS No.2288/B-2 consisted mainly of a Bathroom, a latrine and a well. Whereas, the structure bearing CTS No. 2288/B-1 is a single storey structure, having few residential rooms. It is the case of the respondent that structure CTS No.2288/B-1 was let out to 3 S.A.NO.02/1992. Rangrao. But the structure CTS No.2288/B-2 was used as common amenities and conveyances by all the residents of the cluster. It was the case of the respondent that till 1974, one Rangrao was occupying residential rooms of structure CTS No.2288/B-1 and after he left, the appellant encroached on the structure taking advantage of the fact that she was away from the town for about one and half years. And when she asked him to go away, he refused to do so. So, she filed the suit. 3. As against this, it is the case of the appellant that since beginning i.e. since 1965, he had taken all the three structures mentioned above on rental basis from the respondent and so the suit should fail. 4. The question, thus was, whether the appellant had legal right to occupy the structure CTS No.2288/B-1 & 2288/B-2 . 5. As said above, it was the case of the respondent that till 1974, one Rangrao was occupying residential rooms of structure CTS No.2288/B-1 and after he left, the appellant encroached on the structure. As against this, the appellant's other line of defence was that in 1974, after Rangrao left, the respondent handed over to him the possession of the structure 4 S.A.NO.02/1992. CTS No.2288/B-1 without increasing the rent amount. Thus there is a clear contradiction in the case of the appellant as to since when he occupied the suit property on rental basis. It is mostly because of this contradictions in the case of the appellant and other factual aspects of the case, the Courts below disbelieved his case. 6. I went through the judgments of both the Courts. There is some discussion about the applicability of the provisions of Sections 92 to 99 of the Indian Evidence Act and especially Section 97 to the purport of the document Exh.73. But this document is relevant and should be read in evidence. 7. As said above, the appellant asserted that he took all the three structures on rental basis in 1965 and in order to establish this, he placed reliance on the rent note Exh.73, which is of 1965. In the rent note, there is a clear mention that the respondent had given to him all the three city survey numbers on rental basis. But, except this document, all other circumstances and even the appellant's own statement established quite convincingly that the appellant did not get structure CTS Nos.2288/B-1 and 2288/B-2 on rental basis in 1965. It was Rangrao who was occupying CTS No.2288/B-1 till 1974 and structure CTS No.2288/B-2 mostly was not a residential one, but 5 S.A.NO.02/1992. consisted mostly all the conveyances, such as latrine and bathroom and, therefore, the contents of Exh.73 are found to be devoid of truth. 8. Even assuming that the document was scribed in that fashion, it is clear it was not acted upon. Thus, the appellant failed on facts to prove that he was the tenant in respect of the suit CTS Nos. 2288/B-1 and 2288/B-2. So, the appeal should fail. The appeal stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) 9. At the request of Mr.Bora, learned Advocate, for the appellant, the effect of the judgment and order shall be remained in abeyance for six weeks from the date of signature on this judgment. The appellant shall give undertaking in two weeks that he would vacate the premises after expiry of the period mentioned above. In case, the undertaking is not given, the order shall stand automatically vacated. Dt.27/07/2009. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.