: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 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.485 OF CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.485 OF CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2007 2007 2007 Smt. Sonubai Siddhalingappa Kamble ..Applicant. Vs. Shri Sopanrao Narhar Kalekar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Anil Subramaniam, adv. for the Applicant. Mr.N.B.Shah for Piyush Shah, advs. for the Respondents. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2007. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2007. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2007. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The revision applicant is the original defendant no.1 and the respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. 3. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant no.1 is the tenant of suit premises bearing house no.996 at Budhwar Peth, Pune. The defendant no.1/applicant is a tenant . Monthly rent of the suit premises was 22.50 ps. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction contending on the grounds that the defendant no.1 had sublet the suit premises to other defendants and the defendant nos.2 to 10 were carrying on prostitution in the suit premises. It caused inconvenience and annoyance to the plaintiff. :2: According to him, the house was let out to the defendant no.1 for self-residence but in stead of that she had sublet the premises to other defendants for illegal and immoral purposes that is the prostitution. The plaintiff also contended that he requires the suit premises bonafide for the purpose of demolition of old building and for construction of new one and for his own occupation. The suit was defended by the defendant no.1 alone. The defendants nos. 2 to 10 did not appear to contest the matter and the matter proceeded ex-parte against them. The defendant no.1 denied all the adverse allegations including the allegation that she has sublet the premises to other defendants and that the house is being used for the purpose of prostitution. Several issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court came to conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant no.1 had failed to pay rent and that the premises were reasonably and bonafide required by him for self occupation and that he required premises reasonably and bonafide for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. However, the learned trial Court found that the defendant no.1 had sublet the premises and had allowed the premises to be used for immoral and illegal purposes and the conduct of the defendant was causing nuisance and annoyance to the user. With these findings the suit for eviction came :3: to be decreed. Against the decree, the defendant no.1 preferred Civil Appeal No.172 of 2005. The said appeal also came to be dismissed. The appellate Court fully agreed with the trial Court in all respects. Therefore, the defendant no.1 has preferred the present revision application. 4. The learned counsel for the Parties have taken me through the judgements of both the Courts below as well as oral evidence led by the parties, which consists of the evidence of plaintiff himself and that of the defendant/applicant no.1. There is concurrent finding of the fact of both the Courts below that the defendant no.1 was not residing in the suit premises but at another address, i.e., Kashinath Patil Nagar, Matushree, Survey No.20/2/1, Dhankawadi, Pune. The defendant no.1 reluctantly admitted that she used to visit that house and as and when she fell ill, she used to live there. If she is residing in the suit house as a tenant, there could be no valid reason why, when she felt ill, she is required to stay in the house at Dhankawadi. 5. The Courts below noted that in his evidence the plaintiff had stated that the defendant no.1 had sublet the premises to other defendants and the suit premises were being used for prostitution by the defendant no.2 :4: and 3 with the help of defendant no.4 and other defendants. He also deposed that women were changing from time to time and , therefore, it was impossible to give names and addresses of all the prostitutes carrying on prostitution in the suit premises. The Courts below noted that pending the suit, the police from Faraskhana Police Station had raided the premises on 13-7-2004 and registered F.I.R. No.3284-04. On that basis charge-sheet was filed under Section 8(B) of provisions of Immoral Traffic Act against 15 accused persons. Out them, addresses of seven persons were shown to be House No.996, Budhwar Peth, Pune, ie., the suit property. Record reveals that on 18-10-2003, 27/3/2003 and 29/9/2003, the police had filed reports in the Court against four women under Sections 110, 117 of the Bombay Police Act for behaving in disorderly manner. It was alleged that they were behaving in indecent manner. All these accused were held guilty and awarded fine of Rs.100/- in one case and fine of Rs.50/- in another case. Place of the offence was shown to be House No.996, Budhwar Peth, Pune. The address of one Chanda Kamble in one of the cases is shown to be House No.996, Budhwar Peth, Pune. The learned Appellate Court noted that two male persons were also prosecuted alongwith the women under the same offence and their addresses were also given as H.No.996, Budhwar Peth, Pune. The certified copies of :5: charge-sheets, reports filed by police and Court orders, which are the public documents provided provided corroboration to the testimony of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the trial Court has not given exhibit numbers to these documents. This argument was also made in the Appellate Court and was rejected observing that these are the public documents and the certified copies are admissible in the evidence without producing original documents and giving of exhibit numbers is only a ministerial act, which was not done by the trial Court but the record reveals that the trial Court had referred to and relied upon those documents indicating that the trial Court had admitted those documents in the evidence and also acted upon them. By mistake exhibit numbers were not given and those documents were referred to in evidence. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the nature of the documents, I find no fault in the approach of the Courts below in this respect. It may be noted that it is the civil matter where the standard of proof cannot be as strict as in criminal case. The suit could be decided on the basis of probabilities and in the present case, documentary evidence provides corroboration to the testimony of the plaintiff. The fact that she was staying at different address also provides corroboration to the plea of the plaintiff :6: that the house was sublet to other defendants. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, I find no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the facts given by the Courts below, therefore, I see no reason to interfere. 7. In the result, revision application stands dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement that the applicant shall vacate the premises within one month and shall file undertaking to that effect before the trial Court within two weeks from this day and prays that the execution of the decree may be stayed for a period of one month. To this prayer the learned counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff has no objection. Hence, subject to defendant no.1/applicant filing undertaking before the trial Court within two weeks from this day that she shall vacate the premises and hand over the peaceful possession to the plaintiff within one month from this day decree shall remain stayed for a period of one month from this day. If the applicant fails to :7: file undertaking, the decree may be executed immediately. [J.H.BHATIA, J.] [J.H.BHATIA, J.] [J.H.BHATIA, J.]