1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.36 OF 2009 Rameshchandra s/o Madanlal Chovisiya and another ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Keshav Gore Prathmik Pathshala and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI.P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 29th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioner (original landlord) has filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, challenging the order passed by learned Principal District Judge, Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/2008, on 26.2.2009. 2 3. At the outset, the petitioner/ landlord filed the eviction proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, Jalna under No.94/RC/CR-3, mainly on two grounds i.e. (1) willful default and (2) alleged sub-letting. However, the learned Rent Controller, Jalna negatived both the grounds and rejected the said petition vide order passed on 28.4.2008 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.4/2008 before the learned District Judge, Jalna, challenging the order passed by Rent Controller, Jalna. The said appeal also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order passed by learned District Judge on 26.2.2009. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ landlord has preferred the present Civil Revision Application challenging its correctness and legality. 5. As regards the ground of willful default, the learned Principal District Judge, Jalna has observed in her judgment that, “The entire evidence of landlord is silent in regard to the fact that how the tenant is to be termed as willful defaulter. On the other hand, on perusal of the record and the evidence of the respondents it is clear that as the landlord was not receiving the rent though the cheques were tendered and some cheques were 3 even tendered by the post with covering letters. All those letters are prior to 31.12.1993 which are at page Nos.61 to 65. From these letters it is clear that tenant tendered the rent but landlord failed to encash the cheques.” 6. Admittedly, the petition for eviction was filed in 1994 before the Rent Controller and apparently cheques were sent by the respondent/ tenant towards the rent along with the covering letters prior to 31.12.1993. Hence, in view of the said position, the Rent Controller as well as lower appellate Court rightly negatived the ground of willful default and there is no necessity of any interference therein under revisional jurisdiction. 7. As regards the another ground of sub-letting, it is apparent that by letter dated 3.8.1993 bearing Outward No.22/1993, intimation was given to the petitioner/ landlord about the change of name of the school. Earlier the name of the school was ‘Keshav Gore Prathmik Pathashala’ and it was changed by the respondent Society as ‘Jawaharlal Nehru Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jalna’ and the said change was effected in the honour of late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the eve of his Platinum Anniversary. Therefore, the alleged ground of sub-letting clearly bears no substance and observations made by learned Principal District Judge in that respect need not warrant any interference. 4 8. In the circumstances, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Principal District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/2008 on 26.2.2009 and no interference therein is warranted under the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, present revision application bears no substance. 9. In the result, present revision application bears no substance and same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cra36.09